9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 470 - AT - Central ExciseCondonation of delay - Delay in filling of appeal - Sections 35B - 35E of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Order was received on 1-11-2011 - Committee of Commissioners authorized filing of appeal on 13-2-2012 - The condonation of delay has been sought on the ground that during the period from May 2011 till the appeal was filed, there was no regular Commissioner posted Held that - Following the decision in case of CRYSTAL CO. (2008 (10) TMI 518 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) that condonation of delay may not be a futile exercise. It would be in the interest of justice to condone the delay. Being satisfied that the delay caused on the part of the Department was not deliberate, condone the delay and thus allow the COD application. Hence waiver of condonation of delay In favour of revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal by Revenue. 2. Applicability of statutory provisions under Sections 35B and 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Precedent decisions regarding delay condonation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal by Revenue: The Revenue sought condonation of a 14-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the absence of a regular Commissioner in the Surat-I Commissionerate during the relevant period. The respondent opposed this application, referencing the Tribunal's decision in Narendra Kumar Taparia and the provisions of Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal examined both sides extensively on statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements. It was noted that the appeal was filed promptly after the Committee of Commissioners authorized it, suggesting no delay post-authorization. 2. Applicability of Statutory Provisions Under Sections 35B and 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The Tribunal reproduced Sections 35B and 35E to clarify the statutory framework. Section 35B(3) mandates a three-month period for filing appeals, while Section 35E outlines the powers of the Committee of Chief Commissioners or Commissioner of Central Excise to direct appeals. The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory provisions do not explicitly bar the condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The decision in Narendra Kumar Taparia was reviewed, where the Tribunal had refused condonation due to the Committee's negligence in timely forming an opinion. However, this case did not analyze the statutory provisions in depth, leading to a conclusion based on the procedural lapse rather than statutory constraints. 3. Precedent Decisions Regarding Delay Condonation: The Tribunal considered the Larger Bench's decision in Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd., which distinguished the Narendra Kumar Taparia case based on specific facts and statutory differences. The Tribunal also referred to the Division Bench's decision in Crystal Co., which condoned a 300-day delay under similar circumstances, emphasizing the merit of the case and the non-deliberate nature of the delay. The Tribunal concluded that the decision to refuse condonation in Narendra Kumar Taparia was based on the Committee's procedural shortcomings rather than an absolute statutory prohibition. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the reasons for the delay in the Committee's decision were valid and that public interest should not suffer due to procedural delays. The Tribunal held that the observations of the Larger Bench in Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. were applicable, allowing for the condonation of delay under Sections 35B and 35E. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the 14-day delay in filing the appeal and directed the Registry to list the appeal for decision on merit. Pronouncement: The judgment was pronounced in court on 27-7-2012.
|
