2019 (3) TMI 1795 - AT - Central Excise

Non-submission of proof regarding mandatory pre-deposit and not filing of application for Condoning of Delay - HELD THAT - The order that has been impugned in the present appeal is the order dated 31 July, 2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). A perusal of the order indicates that even that appeal was filed with a delay of 219 days and also without satisfying the condition of pre-deposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) accordingly dismissed the appeal for these two reasons. The normal period prescribed for filing the appeal before the Commissioner is two months, but in this case the appeal was not filed before him within the period of two months. The Commissioner can condone this delay if the appeal is filed within the further period of one month from the expiry of initial period of two months. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed with a delay of 219 days, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have condoned the delay and, therefore, dismissed the appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Non-compliance with mandatory pre-deposit and delay in filing the appeal.
2. Dismissal of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to delay in filing and non-satisfaction of pre-deposit condition.
3. Dismissal of the present appeal by the Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed with defects, including non-submission of proof for mandatory pre-deposit and failure to file an application for Condoning of Delay within the statutory period of limitation. Despite multiple communications to rectify the defects, the Appellant did not comply. The Tribunal scheduled hearings, but the Appellant failed to appear. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period without fulfilling the pre-deposit requirement, leading to non-compliance with statutory provisions.

2. The impugned order dated 31 July, 2018, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), was challenged in the present appeal. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 219 days in filing and non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition. The standard period for filing an appeal before the Commissioner is two months, which was exceeded in this case. Although the Commissioner can condone a delay of up to one month beyond the initial two-month period, the appeal in question was significantly delayed, making it ineligible for condonation. Consequently, the Commissioner rightfully dismissed the appeal based on these grounds.

3. Given the non-compliance with statutory requirements and the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal found no merit in the present appeal. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal, concluding that it deserved to be dismissed based on the established facts and legal provisions. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was in line with the non-compliance and dismissal by the lower authority, thereby affirming the lack of grounds for further consideration or relief.

This detailed analysis outlines the issues of non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements, delays in filing the appeal, and subsequent dismissals by both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, leading to the final dismissal of the present appeal.