2012 (4) TMI 63 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal had remanded the matter to the lower authority - the respondent aggrieved by order went before the Hon ble High Court that passed order on 28.2.2005 without considering that Revenue s appeal was time-barred - review was done before 31.12.02 and unsigned review order was communicated on 17.3.2003 - upon receipt of such order, appeal was filed before Tribunal on 31.3.2003 - respondent challenged the date of review by Board, Revenue was directed to place review record for perusal of the Bench but failed to produce its record and establish that review was done actually on or before 31.12.2002. Revenue explains its stand relying on an unsworn affidavit received from Board Held that - Right to appeal is a statutory right which is exercised in accordance with law and within the time prescribed by it to put an end to the litigation - Time of 1 (one) year was prescribed to review order - merely explaining the practice followed by Board in decision making, Revenue is not absolved of its obligation to adhere to the limitation prescribed by law - entire contention of Revenue based on Board s unsworn affidavit averring non-availability of review record does not grant immunity from bar of limitation - in absence of any cogent evidence establishing date of review was on 31.12.02 Revenue s appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Review order validity and maintainability of appeal under Section 35E of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a challenge to the validity of a review order by the Board under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the subsequent appeal filed by the Revenue. The Hon'ble High Court directed a fresh hearing before the Tribunal due to procedural irregularities in the initial order passed by the Tribunal without giving the respondent an opportunity.

2. The respondent contended that the review order was non-existent as of the crucial date of 31.12.2002, rendering the Revenue's appeal time-barred. The respondent argued that the appeal should have been filed immediately after the review deadline, and the delay of 3 months indicated negligence on the part of the Revenue.

3. The Revenue, represented by the departmental representative, claimed that the review was conducted before the deadline, but due to administrative changes and the unavailability of the review file, they were unable to provide concrete evidence. The Revenue sought leniency from the Tribunal to admit the appeal.

4. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for review and appeal processes. The statutory provision under Section 35E mandated a review within one year of the original order, which was not met in this case. The Tribunal highlighted the significance of timely exercising the right to appeal to avoid perpetuating litigation without a time limit.

5. The Tribunal underscored that the law of limitation serves public policy by preventing unending uncertainty and ensuring the timely resolution of legal disputes. The Tribunal noted the lack of diligence on the part of the Revenue in pursuing the appeal promptly and the subsequent lax approach in handling the review and appeal process.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing the failure to provide concrete evidence of the review being completed by the deadline. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of vigilance in adhering to statutory timelines and the consequences of delays in exercising legal remedies.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision to dismiss the appeal.