2017 (9) TMI 1670 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - appeal was dismissed on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Held that - It is an admitted fact that due to inadvertence, the appeal was filed by the appellant in wrong forum. Since the appeal papers were not returned by the office of the Administrative Commissioner to the appellant and the same was considered for admittance by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal, the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked for condonation of delay, caused between the period of filing the appeal and transferring of the same to the office of the Commissioner (Appeals). The dismissal of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not proper and justified - the matter should go back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeal on the basis of documents/records available before him - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay.
3. Proper justification of dismissal of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, leading to its dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that the appeal was mistakenly filed in the wrong forum, causing a delay in transferring it to the correct office. The Tribunal noted that the appeal papers were not returned by the Administrative Commissioner and were considered for admission by the Commissioner (Appeals). Citing Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Tribunal held that the period between filing the appeal and its transfer should be excluded for computation of the limitation period under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The Tribunal referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a similar case, where the court allowed the extension of the prescribed limit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of limitation was not justified. The Tribunal emphasized the applicability of Section 14 for certain cases where delay is caused due to inadvertent filing in the wrong forum.

3. Despite acknowledging the need for a fresh decision on the merits of the case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a reevaluation. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh based on the available documents and records, ensuring that the appellant is granted an opportunity for a personal hearing before the final decision is made.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, highlighting the importance of a fair and thorough review of the case by the Commissioner (Appeals) without solely relying on the grounds of limitation for dismissal. The judgment emphasized the principles of natural justice and the right to a proper hearing before reaching a final decision on the appeal.