2014 (9) TMI 223 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 898 days - interest under Section 11AB - penalty under Section 11AC - whether this Court can, in an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, interfere with the judgment and order rejecting an application for condonation of delay on merits - Held that - The application for condonation of delay filed before the learned Tribunal reveals that there is some explanation for the delay till March 8, 2012 when the order of the learned Tribunal was received by the appellant. According to the appellants, they were given the erroneous legal advice to await the outcome of the appeal from the Interim Order. While considering an application for condonation of delay, no strait jacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds had been made out or not. Each case has to be weighed from its own facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves. From the conduct, behavior and attitude of the appellant, the Supreme Court found that it could not be said that the party had been callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter. We are required to deal with a reasoned order of the learned Tribunal taking into consideration all relevant facts. It is reiterated that, had we been entertaining a delayed application, we might have condoned the delay on the grounds given; but our interference is not warranted in view of the limited scope of an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. - Following decision of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh 2010 (6) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal against Order-in-Appeal, Show cause notice for recovery under Central Excise Act, Allegations of improper declaration and accounting, Order-in-Original confirmation of demand, Appeal against Commissioner of Central Excise's order, Appeal dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit, Appeal against ex parte Order-in-Appeal, Application for condonation of delay, Legal advice causing delay, Tribunal's judgment on delay condonation, Applicability of Supreme Court judgments on delay condonation.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against various orders related to a show cause notice issued to the appellant for recovery under the Central Excise Act. The appellant was accused of improper declaration and accounting for waste and scrap goods. Despite the appellant's denial and classification explanation, an Order-in-Original confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. The subsequent appeals to the Commissioner of Central Excise and the Tribunal faced challenges, including dismissal for non-compliance of pre-deposit and delay in filing. The appellant sought condonation of delay, citing erroneous legal advice causing the delay, which was dismissed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal's judgment considered the explanation for the delay unacceptable, leading to the dismissal of the condonation application. The appellant argued that the delay was due to awaiting the outcome of an interim order, but the Tribunal found the explanation insufficient. The appellant contended that the delay was beyond their control and sought relief based on legal precedents, including Supreme Court judgments on delay condonation. However, the Court highlighted the limited scope of appeal under the Central Excise Act, stating that interference with the Tribunal's decision is not warranted solely based on a different view. The Court emphasized the need to consider each case's unique circumstances and facts regarding delay condonation.

The Court differentiated the facts of the present case from those in the cited judgments, emphasizing the Tribunal's reasoned decision and the limited scope of appeal under the Central Excise Act. While acknowledging that they might have considered condoning the delay based on the grounds presented, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision. The order clarified that the appellant retains the right to pursue other legal remedies available. Overall, the Court's decision underscores the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and the limited scope of appellate review in matters of delay condonation under the Central Excise Act.