2012 (9) TMI 55 - AT - Central Excise

Plea for condonation of delay of one year seven months by Department - appeal was earlier not preferred against order on ground that impugned order was based on decision SLP against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court hence decision has been confirmed by Supreme Court - appeal however later preferred based on the view taken by Tribunal in case of CCE Jallandhar vs. A.G. Flats Ltd.(2011 (7) TMI 968 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) that dismissal of civil appeals In-Limine by Supreme Court without adverting to the facts and without giving reasons could not be taken as the law laid down by Supreme Court - Held that - Once the Committee of Commissioners after considering the factual and legal aspect have decided not to prefer appeal against the impugned order the order has attained finality. As such the issue now cannot be reopened only because in a subsequent judgment the Tribunal has taken view that in-limine dismissal of appeal by the Supreme Court does not lay down any law - appeals dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) based on mistaken interpretation of previous judgments.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi dealt with two applications for condonation of delay of one year seven months in filing appeals by the Department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29.3.2010. The Department cited the reason for delay as the mistaken interpretation of the judgment of the Tribunal in the matter of CCE, Hyderabad vs. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. The Department had initially decided not to file an appeal against the impugned order based on the belief that the dismissal of the Civil Appeal by the Supreme Court confirmed the legal position established by the Tribunal. However, a subsequent judgment by the Tribunal clarified that in-limine dismissal of appeals by the Supreme Court does not establish any legal precedent.

The Tribunal considered the submissions made by the Department's representative, where it was argued that the Committee of Commissioners had initially decided not to prefer an appeal against the impugned order due to the belief that the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Civil Appeal constituted a legal position. However, the Tribunal held that this explanation was insufficient to condone the delay, as the Committee of Commissioners had already accepted the impugned order after considering all factual and legal aspects. The Tribunal emphasized that once a decision has been made by the Committee of Commissioners not to file an appeal, the order attains finality, and cannot be reopened based on subsequent judgments clarifying legal positions.

Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the applications for condonation of delay and dismissed them. As a result of the dismissal of the applications, the appeals were also dismissed as time-barred. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper legal interpretation and the finality of decisions made by competent authorities, emphasizing that mistaken beliefs or subsequent clarifications by courts cannot reopen settled matters.