9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (1) TMI 994 - AT - Central ExciseCondonation of delay - Period of limitation - Held that - From the records it is clear that the appellants had filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of 23 days i.e. well within the period of 90 days of the impugned order. In that view the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) condoned and in the interest of justice the matter is sent back to the lower appellate authority to pass an appropriate order on merits after hearing the appellants by giving them a reasonable opportunity to defend their case. As the appellants have already paid the duty and interest involved in this case the waiver of penalty is granted.
Issues: Appeal rejection due to delay in filing, condonation of delay, application for stay.
Analysis: 1. Delay in filing appeal: The appellants appealed against an order that was rejected by the lower appellate authority for being filed beyond the 60-day limitation period. The appeal before the Tribunal was found to be within the time limit, leading to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Condonation of delay: The impugned order rejected the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) as it was beyond the 60-day limitation period. Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 allows for a 60-day appeal period, extendable by 30 days at the discretion of the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower appellate authority did not exercise discretion to condone the delay, even though the appellants filed the appeal within 90 days of the impugned order. The Tribunal, however, condoned the delay and remanded the matter to the lower appellate authority for a decision on merits after giving the appellants an opportunity to defend their case. 3. Application for stay: The appellants had already paid the duty and interest involved in the case, leading to the waiver of penalty. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand and disposed of the stay application accordingly. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the lower appellate authority for a decision on merits, and disposed of the stay application in a manner consistent with the waiver of penalty due to the payment of duty and interest by the appellants.
|
