2011 (6) TMI 620 - AT - Central Excise

Application for condonation of delay of 111 days - appellants have very good case on merits and the department had failed to establish that the appellants had collected revised price - DR submitted that there is absolutely no case for the appellants as the fact that the prices were revised in terms of the revision of price carried out under the order issued by the Ministry of Petroleum which the appellants were bound to comply with Held that - It is neither disputed nor can be disputed that the revision of price of product in question is controlled by the Ministry of Petroleum and once the price is revised by the Ministry of Petroleum the person dealing with such product has no option but to follow the direction of the Ministry in that regard. no case made our for condonation of delay of 111 days and hence miscellaneous application fails and is hereby dismissed

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Dispute over the receipt of the impugned order by the appellants.
3. Merits of the case regarding the revision of product prices and liability under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act.

Issue 1 - Condonation of Delay:
The appellants sought condonation of a 111-day delay in filing the appeal, citing lack of knowledge of the impugned order's receipt until 23-9-2010. They argued that an employee of their contractor received the order but did not hand it over. However, the department disputed this claim, stating the order was duly received by the appellants on 17-3-2010. The appellants relied on past cases to support their claim for delay condonation. The tribunal noted the importance of showing sufficient cause for delay and emphasized that decisions from other cases must be relevant to the current situation. Ultimately, the tribunal found no justification for condoning the delay and dismissed the application.

Issue 2 - Dispute Over Order Receipt:
The appellants claimed that the employee who received the order was not authorized to do so and did not hand it over to them. However, they failed to provide substantial evidence supporting this claim. The tribunal highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the employee's status and the absence of proof that the appellants were unaware of the order before 23-9-2010. The tribunal also noted the appellants' confirmation of the employee's signature on the order receipt. As per the General Clauses Act, once the postal authorities confirm delivery, a presumption arises. The tribunal found insufficient evidence to justify the appellants' lack of knowledge of the order before the stated date.

Issue 3 - Merits of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the revision of product prices and the liability under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. The department contended that the revision of prices by the Ministry of Petroleum required compliance, which the appellants did not dispute. The tribunal observed that once the Ministry revises prices, compliance is mandatory, and the burden of proof lies with the party disputing the revision. The appellants' failure to challenge the Ministry's price revision weakened their case. References to past cases were deemed irrelevant as they did not address the specific issue at hand. Ultimately, the tribunal found no merit in the appellants' case and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, citing insufficient cause shown by the appellants. The dispute over the receipt of the order lacked substantial evidence, and the merits of the case did not favor the appellants due to their failure to challenge the Ministry's price revision. The decision highlighted the importance of providing relevant evidence and legal arguments specific to the case at hand.

← Previous Next →