2012 (10) TMI 950 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Limitation period under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act 1944 - Held that - The first appellate authority has clearly recorded that appellant has filed appeal belatedly by one year and two months approximately. We find that the Hon ble Supreme Court has time and again clearly laid down the law that first appellate authority i.e. Commissioner (Appeals) does not have any power to condone the delay in filing appeal beyond the specified period as indicated under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act 1944 - first appellate authority was right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has filed the appeal belatedly which has been fortified by the acknowledgement produced the office of the Deputy Commissioner Central Excise & Customs Division-II Silvassa - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad involved the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant had filed an application for condonation of a 15-day delay in filing the appeal, which was found to be properly justified by the tribunal. The tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay and directed the registry to take the stay petition and appeal on record.

Upon taking up the stay petition and appeal for disposal, the tribunal noted that the lower authority had dismissed the appeal due to the appellant filing it beyond the prescribed period under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The first appellate authority had specifically mentioned that the appeal was belated by approximately one year and two months. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's precedent, emphasizing that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not possess the power to condone delays in filing appeals beyond the specified period as per the Act.

The tribunal further examined the factual position, noting that the acknowledgment from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Division-II, Silvassa, confirmed that the appellant's authorized signatory had received the copies of the order in the original on a specific date. Based on this evidence, the tribunal concluded that the first appellate authority was correct in determining that the appeal was filed belatedly. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the impugned order, deeming it legally sound and free from any defects, and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment reaffirmed the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and highlighted the limitations on the Commissioner (Appeals) in condoning delays beyond the specified period. The decision underscored the significance of procedural compliance in legal matters concerning appeals in excise cases.