2010 (11) TMI 341 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Anti-dumping duty - the last writ petition was filed in August, 2009 and the same was within three months from the date of issuance of the final Notification - if one peruses the order of the Hon ble High Court, it is apparent that being conscious of the fact that the period for filing appeal against the final Notification having been already expired, a liberty was granted to the applicants to prefer such an appeal within three weeks - Since the appeal was required to be filed on or before 16-9-2010 but it was filed on 27-9-2010, it is obvious that the applicants were required to disclose sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal from 16-9-2010 till 27-9-2010 - It is true that to hear the anti-dumping matter, it is necessary for the President of the CESTAT to constitute an anti-dumping Bench as per law and anti-dumping Bench is always required to be comprised of President, Judicial Member and Technical Member - Hence, the application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly hereby dismissed

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Interpretation of the High Court's order regarding the filing period.
3. Applicability of the Limitation Act to CESTAT proceedings.
4. Sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The applicants sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the imposition of anti-dumping duty. They argued that the delay was due to the pendency of writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court and that the High Court had granted them liberty to file the appeal within three weeks from the date of its order. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed on 27-9-2010, beyond the three-week period prescribed by the High Court, which expired on 16-9-2010. The Tribunal emphasized that the applicants failed to disclose any sufficient cause for the delay from 16-9-2010 to 27-9-2010, making the condonation of delay untenable.

Interpretation of the High Court's Order Regarding the Filing Period:
The High Court order explicitly granted liberty to the applicants to file an appeal within three weeks from the date of the order (26-8-2010). The Tribunal interpreted this as a strict deadline, rejecting the applicants' contention that the period should be counted from the date of obtaining the certified copy of the order. The Tribunal highlighted that the High Court's directive for the parties' counsel to appear before the Tribunal on 27-9-2010 indicated that the appeal should have been filed before that date, aligning with the three-week period.

Applicability of the Limitation Act to CESTAT Proceedings:
The Tribunal reiterated that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, are not applicable to CESTAT proceedings. Instead, the Tribunal is governed by the Customs Act, Rules, and CESTAT Procedure Rules. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal should have been filed within the period prescribed by the High Court, and the general principles of limitation and condonation do not apply in this context.

Sufficient Cause for Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal beyond the three-week period prescribed by the High Court. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was against the Notification, not the High Court's order, and all relevant facts were already available to the applicants. The Tribunal also pointed out that the appeal was incomplete when filed on 27-9-2010, and defects were only removed on 21-10-2010, indicating a lack of diligence on the applicants' part.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the applicants did not meet the prescribed filing period set by the High Court and failed to disclose any sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal underscored the importance of adhering to the specific directions of the High Court and maintaining the integrity of judicial orders.

← Previous Next →