2011 (7) TMI 702 - HC - Central Excise

Delay - no application for condoning the delay - delay condonation application has not been filed for about 9 years - the procedure prescribed under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is directory/technical in nature and substantial compliance of directory procedure has been held to be acceptable - Tribunal has relied upon several decisions for abatement of the claims on the ground that substantial benefits could not be denied on procedural delay - There is nothing to show that under Rule 96ZO(2) all the five conditions have to be satisfied for claiming abatement, no fraud or commission of administrative inconvenience is alleged, no question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is barred by time. It also has no merits, application is accordingly rejected

Summary

Issues: Central Excise Reference Application, Delay Condonation, Abatement Claims, Rule 96ZO(2) Compliance, Procedural Requirements, Fraud Allegations, Administrative Inconvenience, Barred Appeal

The High Court considered a Central Excise Reference Application that was initially reported defective due to a one-day delay in filing. Despite being dismissed in default twice and later restored, no application for condoning the delay was submitted even after nine years. The Court noted that the tribunal correctly deemed the procedure under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as directory/technical, accepting substantial compliance as sufficient.

Regarding abatement claims for the period from 28-5-1998 to 29-8-1998, the Court observed that the company, engaged in manufacturing M.S. ingots, failed to provide required intimations under Rule 96ZO(2) due to practical issues with the electricity meter reading. The tribunal acknowledged the replacement of the meter on 29-8-1998, supported by a sealing certificate from the Electricity Department, as sufficient compliance with the rule.

The Court clarified that all five conditions under Rule 96ZO(2) need not be met for claiming abatement. It emphasized that procedural requirements could be waived with a satisfactory explanation accepted by the adjudicating authority. Citing the precedent of INDAL v. Thane Municipal Corporation, the Court highlighted that non-observance of a procedural condition could be excused if it does not facilitate fraud or cause administrative inconvenience.

No allegations of fraud or administrative inconvenience were raised in the case, leading the Court to conclude that no legal question merited consideration. The appeal was deemed time-barred and lacking in merits, resulting in the rejection of the reference application by the Court.