2014 (4) TMI 1124 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Held that - Appeal filed after a period of five years from the date of receipt of these orders cannot be accepted. The delay was enormous and could not have been condoned by the CESTAT in terms of the powers conferred in it. In these circumstances we are of the view that the findings of fact do not raise any substantial question of law. Such findings of fact are not demonstrated to be perverse. Reliance on the correspondence carried out by M/s. Narayan Dyeing cannot be of assistance to the appellant simply because if the appellant is distinct entity it could not have relied upon the correspondence between M/s. Narayan Dyeing and the Department. The letterhead of M/s. Narayan Dyeing shows the same address as is noted by the CESTAT. Even the cause title of the present appeal shows the same address. In these circumstances we are of the view that the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred and awareness of adjudication proceedings.
3. Claim of association with another entity and the impact on the appeal timeline.

Issue 1:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, stating that they were carrying out manufacturing activities and had duly followed all procedures under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules. The appellant claimed that despite discharging their duty liability, they were issued a show cause notice which they alleged was not received by them, leading to an ex-parte order without their knowledge. They contended that they were not aware of the adjudication proceedings and orders passed against them.

Issue 2:
The appellant argued that their factory was closed, and a new registration was issued in the name of another entity, which was informed about the orders-in-original, not the appellants. The appellant claimed that the appeal was not time-barred as they received the orders at a later date and filed the appeal accordingly. However, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and the CESTAT found that the orders were duly served and known to the appellants, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

Issue 3:
The appellants claimed an association with another entity, M/s. Narayan Dyeing, and argued that their knowledge of the orders was based on the date they received them, not the date of the order. Despite this argument, both the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and the CESTAT confirmed that the orders were served and known to the appellants. The CESTAT held that the appeal, filed after a significant delay from the date of order receipt, could not be accepted, as the delay was considerable and could not be condoned. The reliance on correspondence by M/s. Narayan Dyeing was deemed irrelevant as the appellant was a distinct entity, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without raising any substantial question of law.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the CESTAT, dismissing the appeal as time-barred and affirming that the findings of fact did not raise any substantial question of law. The court found that the appellant's association with another entity did not impact the awareness of the orders served on them, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.