2013 (2) TMI 516 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of penalty - Stay petition - Period of limitation - Delay of 53 days in filing of appeal - Section 35 of the Central Excise Act - Commissioner (Appeals) noted this legal position and held the assessee s appeal to be time-barred However, he proceeded to consider the appeal on merits - Held that - The assessee s appeal against the order-in-original was delayed by more than 30 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) does not have the power to condone such delay, a legal position well settled in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES (2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Commissioner (Appeals), even after holding the assessee s appeal to be time-barred, chose to address the merits of the case was without jurisdiction. A time-barred appeal could only be rejected on that ground by the Commissioner (Appeals) where the delay was found to be beyond the condonable period of delay. Stay petition rejected

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal for waiver and stay of adjudged dues due to delay in filing appeal against original authority's order.
- Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation and merits.
- Appellate Tribunal's decision on the appeal and stay application against the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought waiver and stay regarding the adjudged dues due to a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal against the order of the original authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal citing limitation and merits. The Tribunal reviewed the records and found that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, which the Commissioner (Appeals) could not condone beyond 30 days. Despite this, the Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded to consider the appeal on merits and held the appellant liable for the differential duty, interest, and penalty as determined by the original authority.

2. The Additional Commissioner (AR) contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have jurisdiction to decide on the merits of the case due to the time-barred nature of the appeal. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, it was argued that the appellate authority should have rejected the appeal solely on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal acknowledged the validity of this argument, emphasizing that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to condone delays exceeding 30 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal concurred that addressing the merits of a time-barred appeal was beyond the jurisdiction of the appellate authority.

3. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the present appeal along with the stay application without delving into the merits of the case. The decision was based on the well-settled legal position that a time-barred appeal should be rejected solely on the grounds of limitation if the delay is beyond the condonable period. The Tribunal upheld the principle that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to consider the merits of an appeal that was clearly time-barred, as highlighted by the Additional Commissioner (AR).

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, and the Tribunal's ruling, focusing on the legal aspects of limitation and jurisdiction in adjudicating such matters.