2014 (4) TMI 875 - HC - Central Excise

Review application - Held that - Court while deciding the appeal vide order dated 02.07.2007 has remanded back the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration. This Court has not condoned the delay and when the matter came up for consideration before the Tribunal. Tribunal following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur (2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has held that Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered only to condone the delay of 30 days and not beyond that, in terms of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply. Therefore, even if it is taken that the decision of this Court is binding upon the parties, it will not help the applicant because no positive view condoning the delay has been taken by this Court and matter has been remanded back for reconsideration. Thus, Tribunal has to decide the appeal in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Review of order dated 20.08.2009 regarding condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Interpretation of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in condoning the delay in filing an appeal.
3. Binding nature of previous court decisions on subsequent tribunals and the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delays.

Analysis:
1. The review application was filed to challenge the order dated 20.08.2009, which dealt with the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The applicant argued that a previous Division Bench order approved the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) had the power to condone delays beyond the prescribed period. However, the High Court did not find merit in this argument and rejected the review application, stating that the order was in accordance with the law and did not require any interference.

2. The case involved the interpretation of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in condoning the delay in filing an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal on the grounds that the power to condone delay was limited to thirty days under Section 35. The High Court, in a previous order, had allowed an appeal by stating that delays could be condoned beyond the prescribed period if grounds existed for condonation. However, following a subsequent decision by the Apex Court in another case, it was held that the Commissioner (Appeals) could only condone delays of thirty days, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal based on the Apex Court's decision, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent appeal filed by the applicant.

3. The High Court emphasized that its previous decision remanding the matter back to the Tribunal did not condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, following the Apex Court's decision, upheld the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) could only condone delays of thirty days as per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The High Court clarified that even if its previous decision was binding, it did not explicitly condone the delay, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration based on the law laid down by the Apex Court. Therefore, the Tribunal was required to decide the appeal in accordance with the Apex Court's interpretation.

In conclusion, the High Court rejected the review application, upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the Apex Court's interpretation of the law, and emphasized the binding nature of legal precedents on subsequent tribunals.