2017 (3) TMI 1694 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 104 days in filing the appeal - power of Commissioner to condone delay beyond 30 days - Held that - It appears that the appellant has just intimated to the Department by its letter dated 23/9/2009 but no supporting document was enclosed. Actually, the supporting document was submitted after a delay of 104 days for which there was no satisfactory explanation except that Chartered Accountant was not available due to illness. No medical certificate has been submitted. An identical issue before the Tribunal came in the case of Nalari Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Shillong 2016 (4) TMI 57 - CESTAT KOLKATA where it was observed that the delay beyond the statutory limit prescribed in the said Notification is not condonable. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing a refund claim under Notification No. 32/1999-CE.
2. Submission of supporting documents for refund claim.
3. Applicability of previous tribunal judgment on delay condonation.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing a refund claim under Notification No. 32/1999-CE
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Ferro Silicon, sought fixation of a special rate under Notification No. 32/1999-CE. The notification required the submission of a refund claim by 30th September each year, with a provision for the Commissioner to condone a delay of up to 30 days. In this case, the appellant filed a letter on 23/9/2009 without supporting documents, followed by the submission of the required documents on 13/01/2010, resulting in a delay of 104 days. The Commissioner contended that beyond the initial 30-day condonable period, no further delay could be excused. The appellant challenged this decision, leading to the present appeal.

Issue 2: Submission of supporting documents for refund claim
Upon review, it was noted that the appellant had initially only intimated the Department about the refund claim through a letter dated 23/9/2009, without attaching any supporting documents. Subsequently, the necessary documents were submitted after a delay of 104 days, with the explanation provided being the unavailability of the Chartered Accountant due to illness. However, no medical certificate was furnished to substantiate this claim. The delay in submitting the supporting documents was a critical factor in the decision-making process.

Issue 3: Applicability of previous tribunal judgment on delay condonation
The Tribunal referenced a prior case involving a similar issue, Nalari Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Shillong-2016, where it was held that delays beyond the statutory limit specified in the relevant notification were not condonable. Citing this precedent, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's appeal and upheld the impugned order, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The decision was based on the established legal interpretation regarding delay condonation in such cases, as clarified by previous tribunal rulings.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA addressed the issues of delay condonation in filing refund claims, the submission of supporting documents, and the application of precedent in similar cases. The decision emphasized adherence to statutory timelines and the importance of providing adequate justification for delays in compliance with regulatory requirements.