2010 (7) TMI 350 - HC - Central Excise

Apeal Limitation - order-in-original dated 7-8-2002, appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on 21-9-2004, and dismissed on the ground of limitation - appeal before the Tribunal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 6-9-2005 - application for restoration of appeal, dismissed on 21-2-2006 Rectifiation of appael moved three years thereafter, dismissed on 7-8-2009 - contention of the petitioner that order in original was not served upon it at the relevant time and that it was served for the first time on 13-8-2004 when a letter for recovery was issued to the petitioner - petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the order made by the Tribunal way back in the year 2005, more particularly when no explanation for this delay and the conduct of the petitioner - petitioner not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the petition Petition rejected

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking writ of certiorari to quash impugned orders, appeal dismissal on grounds of limitation, application for restoration of appeal, application for rectification of appeal, delay in challenging orders, service of original order, petitioner's conduct affecting relief under Article 226.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking writ of certiorari to quash various impugned orders, including those by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The dispute arose from an Order-in-Original confirming duty demand, penalty, and interest against the petitioner. The appeal process involved dismissal at various stages due to time limitations and procedural grounds, leading to subsequent applications for restoration and rectification of appeal.

2. The petitioner argued that the Order-in-Original was not served promptly, affecting the appeal timeline. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, citing statutory limitations under the Central Excise Act. Subsequent appeals to the Tribunal were also dismissed, leading to applications for restoration and rectification of appeal. The petitioner contended that delayed service of the original order impacted the appeal filing timeline, justifying relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. The court noted the significant delays by the petitioner in challenging the orders, with considerable time passing since the initial Order-in-Original. Despite claims of delayed service, the petitioner's actions, including repeated applications after extended intervals, weakened the case for relief. The court emphasized that the petitioner's conduct, including the delay in approaching the court, disentitled them from seeking relief under Article 226.

4. Ultimately, the court found the petitioner not entitled to the requested reliefs due to the lack of merit in the petition. The court summarily rejected the petition, highlighting the petitioner's conduct, inordinate delays, and failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged legal proceedings. The judgment underscored the importance of timely legal actions and adherence to procedural requirements in seeking judicial remedies.