2010 (7) TMI 384 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal to Tribunal Limitation Service of order Delay of more than three years in filing appeal - in the absence of evidence that the orders sent to A.C, Agra was served on the party, there was doubt about the services of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - benefit of doubt requires to be extended to the applicant Delay condoned

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals)
Service of orders and condonation of delay
Validity of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal
Applicability of legal precedents

Delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals):
The appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 6th October 2009, more than 3 years after the order dated 19-1-2006. The delay was attributed to the appellants' claim of not being aware of the order until 6-7-09. The Commissioner (Appeals) had issued an ex parte order due to non-appearance by the appellants' advocate on multiple hearing dates. The Tribunal, after examining the circumstances, condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal, citing doubts about the proper service of the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Service of orders and condonation of delay:
The Department produced an acknowledgment dated 13-8-03 indicating the service of 9 orders in original, including the one dated 19-1-2006. The appellants claimed that the orders were served on a partner not authorized to receive them, citing the partnership deed terms. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants were served with the orders at least by 13-8-03, well before the appeal filing date of 21-10-04. The delay in filing the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed excessive and beyond the Commissioner's powers to condone.

Validity of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal:
The Tribunal observed that the appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 19-1-2006 were filed after a delay of more than 3 years. Despite the lack of proof of proper service of the orders by the Department, the Tribunal granted the benefit of doubt and allowed the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal.

Applicability of legal precedents:
The appellants argued that the delay should be condoned due to the partner's health condition and the alleged lack of authorization for receiving communications on behalf of the firm. However, the Tribunal referenced legal precedents, including a Supreme Court judgment, to establish that the delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) was excessive and could not be condoned beyond the specified limit. Consequently, the appeals were rejected as being time-barred by the Commissioner (Appeals).

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal but rejected the appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the excessive delay, citing legal precedents regarding the condonable time limit for delays in filing appeals.