2004 (2) TMI 692 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.
2. Application of principles of natural justice in considering sufficient cause for delay.
3. Finality of an order and re-agitation of issues based on subsequent decisions.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court in matters of condonation of delay and appeal decisions.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge the rejection of their appeal and condonation of delay application by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the applicant failed to show sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the limitation period under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal's satisfaction regarding the delay is crucial, and the High Court cannot substitute its satisfaction for that of the Tribunal.

2. The petitioner did not challenge the initial order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 14-3-2000, which led to a demand for duty payment. Subsequently, a Larger Bench decision favored the petitioner's position, prompting a refund application. However, the refund claim was rejected, and subsequent appeals were dismissed, leading to a demand notice for interest. The High Court observed that the Tribunal must consider the circumstances surrounding the delay in filing the appeal and cannot issue directions to the Tribunal in such matters.

3. The Tribunal's decision to reject the appeal was based on the petitioner's failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. The High Court emphasized that it does not sit as a Court of appeal and cannot substitute its views for those of the Tribunal unless there is perversity or jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. The finality of the order dated 14-3-2000 was highlighted, indicating that the petitioner cannot re-agitate the issue based on subsequent decisions.

4. The High Court concluded that the petition challenging the Tribunal's order was not maintainable, and interference was not warranted unless there was perversity or jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. As the order dated 14-3-2000 had attained finality due to the petitioner's conscious decision not to appeal, the High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision. The judgment underscores the importance of respecting the finality of orders and the jurisdictional boundaries of the High Court in such matters.