2010 (8) TMI 326 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal to Appellate Tribunal Appellate order Letter from Additional Commissioner Communication to assessee that chief Commissioner had extended period of attachment of their property Appeal cannot be filed against mere communication in relation to an order Appeal to Appellate Tribunal Reason of delay No sufficient cause disclosed for delay of 40 days No details given of delay - Appeal rejected

Summary

Issues involved: Condonation of Delay; Appealability of Communication as Order; Sufficiency of Cause for Delay

Condonation of Delay:
The applicants sought condonation of a 40-day delay, attributing it to the uncooperative attitude of the CESTAT registry staff. The applicants claimed to have a strong prima facie case and believed they would likely succeed. However, the Tribunal noted that no sufficient cause for the delay was disclosed, with no specific details provided regarding the alleged uncooperative behavior of the registry staff during the period of delay. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applications for condonation of delay due to the lack of disclosed reasons for the delay.

Appealability of Communication as Order:
The applicants intended to appeal a communication dated 25th September, 2009, from the Additional Commissioner, Meerut, extending the period of property attachment. However, the Tribunal clarified that the communication did not constitute an appealable order under Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal emphasized that appeals can only be filed against orders made appealable under the Act, not against mere communications related to orders. The Tribunal highlighted that the mere communication of an order does not qualify as an order subject to appellate review. As the communication did not contain an appealable order, the Tribunal concluded that there was no substance in the appeals and they were bound to fail. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the applications on the ground that the appeals were not maintainable against a mere communication.

Sufficiency of Cause for Delay:
The Tribunal further observed that the applicants failed to demonstrate a sufficient cause for the delay of forty days. Notably, the applicants did not provide specific details or particulars regarding the alleged uncooperative behavior of the registry staff during the period of delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the lack of sufficient cause for the delay, coupled with the non-appealable nature of the communication in question, rendered the appeals devoid of merit. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applications for condonation of delay, as no valid reason for the delay was substantiated.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, in the judgment, addressed the issues of condonation of delay, the appealability of a communication as an order, and the sufficiency of cause for delay. The Tribunal dismissed the applications for condonation of delay due to the lack of disclosed reasons for the delay and the non-appealable nature of the communication in question. The judgment highlighted the importance of appealing only against orders made appealable under the relevant legislation and emphasized the need to establish valid reasons for seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings.