2016 (4) TMI 57 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal / application before Commissioner (Appeals) - Claiming Benefit of Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 as amended - Denial of exemption as Appellants had failed to submit their applications as stipulated under the said Notification, neither by 30th of September of the respective financial year nor within the condonable period of 30(thirty) days - Held that - In the present Notification, inter alia, it is a condition that the assesse is required to file necessary application by 30th of September in the financial year and also under the first proviso to the said Notification, the Commissioner has been vested with the power to accept the application by condoning the delay to a maximum of 30(thirty) days on finding sufficient cause for the delay. Admittedly, the second condition has not been complied with by the Appellants. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid ratios the Appellants are not entitled to avail the benefit of the said Notification. On the issue of condonation of delay beyond 30(thirty) days, we find that The Hon ble supreme Court in Singh Enterprises case (2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) held that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days but in terms of the proviso further 30 days time can be granted by the appellate authority to entertain the appeal. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999.
2. Condonation of delay in filing applications for exemption.
3. Interpretation of statutory provisions and conditions of exemption notifications.
4. Authority of the Commissioner to condone delays beyond the statutory limit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999:

The appellants engaged in manufacturing excisable goods in the North-Eastern Region claimed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999. They filed applications with delays ranging from 82 to 176 days beyond the due date. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, rejected these applications on the grounds that they were not submitted by the stipulated date of 30th September of the respective financial year, nor within the condonable period of 30 days.

2. Condonation of Delay in Filing Applications for Exemption:

The appellants argued that the delay was due to the unavailability of the value addition certificate and balance sheet from the preceding financial year. They contended that the delay was unintentional and technical, and should have been condoned by the adjudicating authority. They cited various judgments to support their claim for condonation of delays.

Conversely, the Revenue argued that the conditions of the Notification were specific and required strict compliance. The Commissioner could only condone delays up to 30 days beyond the due date, and any further delay was beyond his authority to condone.

3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Conditions of Exemption Notifications:

The Tribunal emphasized the well-settled principle that exemption notifications must be strictly interpreted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Meridian Indus. Ltd. and Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. reiterated that the onus lies on the appellant to prove that their case falls within the four corners of the notification. If there is any doubt or ambiguity, it should be resolved in favor of the Department.

4. Authority of the Commissioner to Condon Delays Beyond the Statutory Limit:

The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises, which clarified that statutory authorities cannot condone delays beyond the period explicitly allowed by the statute. The Commissioner has no power to condone delays beyond the additional 30 days stipulated in the Notification. This principle was further supported by the Bombay High Court's decision in Zenith Computers Ltd., which held that statutory bodies must act within the powers conferred by the statute.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the appellants failed to comply with the conditions of the Notification by not submitting their applications within the stipulated time frame. Consequently, the benefit of the exemption could not be extended to them. The Tribunal upheld the orders of the adjudicating authority, dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants. The operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court.