2012 (9) TMI 56 - AT - Central Excise

Plea by Revenue for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by 128 days - order expanding scope of exemption Notification N.52/2003-Cus. dated 31.03.2003, issued on 06.07.2011 and corrigendum issued on 17.8.2011 - Revenue contended that delay occurred due to fact of examination at later stage and appeal involves a substantial question of 1aw - Held that - It can be noticed that the reasons given are not justifiable as the very same order in appeal contained everything and which has been adjudicated and accepted that the impugned order was issued on 6.07.11 and the corrigendum was issued on 17.08.11. The points which sought to be urged were already present when the impugned order was received by the lower authorities. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is dismissed - Decided against Revenue

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Interpretation of law, Scope of exemption notification

Delay in filing appeal:
The Revenue filed an application for delay in filing the appeal by 128 days. The reason provided was the examination at a later stage and points noticed from Circular No.91/2002-Cus. The Circular stated that the sale of un-utilized duty-free goods should be exceptional, not regular. The Respondent had been regularly availing this provision by selling un-utilized Steel Plates to the SEZ unit. The Commissioner (Appeal) had expanded the scope of exemption Notification N.52/2003-Cus. by allowing the transfer of raw materials as re-export, not provided in the Notification. The appeal was considered to involve a substantial question of law.

Condonation of delay:
The Deputy Commissioner sought condonation of delay based on the directions from the Committee comprising Commissioners of Customs and Central Excise. The impugned Order-in-Appeal was issued on 06.07.2011, with a corrigendum on 17.08.2011. The Deputy Commissioner argued for the correct interpretation of law due to the circumstances of the case. However, the Tribunal found the reasons provided by the Revenue not justifiable, as the points raised were already present when the impugned order was received by the lower authorities. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue had not made a case for condoning the delay, leading to the dismissal of the application and appeal.

Interpretation of law:
The Revenue's argument for condonation of delay was based on the interpretation of law regarding the sale of un-utilized duty-free goods and the scope of exemption notifications. The Tribunal found that the interpretation provided was not sufficient to justify the delay in filing the appeal, as the points raised were already known when the impugned order was received.

Scope of exemption notification:
The Commissioner (Appeal) had expanded the scope of exemption Notification N.52/2003-Cus. by allowing the transfer of raw materials as re-export, which was not explicitly provided in the Notification. This expansion was seen as potentially undermining the purpose of the exemption Notification and the EOU Scheme, leading to a substantial question of law in the appeal.