2016 (5) TMI 446 - HC - Central Excise

Period of limitation - Delay of more than one and half years in filing the appeal - Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that once a decision was taken by the two Commissioners for not filing an appeal, the said matter had attained a finality and could not be reopened on the basis of a subsequent judgment given by a Tribunal - Held that - the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law. The appellant cannot take advantage of a subsequent decision and reopen a matter which had attained a finality especially after a lapse of one and half years. The delay can be condoned in exceptional matters and while condoning the delay a discretion is given to the Tribunal or to the Court to condone the delay on sound reasoning. In the instant case, we find that the Tribunal has given sound reasoning in rejecting the application of the Department for condoning the delay. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues: Appeal against dismissal on ground of limitation. Review of decision by Commissioners. Condonation of delay.

Issue 1: Appeal against dismissal on ground of limitation
The High Court heard an appeal against the Tribunal's order dismissing the Department's appeal due to a delay of more than one and a half years. The Tribunal found no cogent reasons for condoning the delay, leading to the Department filing the present appeal.

Issue 2: Review of decision by Commissioners
The two Commissioners initially decided not to file an appeal before the Tribunal, based on a decision by the Supreme Court. However, after a significant lapse of time, they reviewed their decision in light of a ruling by the Customs and Central Excise Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the matter had attained finality after the initial decision by the Commissioners and could not be reopened based on a subsequent judgment.

Issue 3: Condonation of delay
The High Court opined that the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in not condoning the delay did not contain any legal error. It emphasized that reopening a matter that had attained finality, especially after a considerable time lapse, should not be allowed merely on the basis of a subsequent decision. The Court highlighted that delay condonation should be granted only in exceptional cases with sound reasoning, a discretion that lies with the Tribunal or the Court.

The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was sound, rejecting the Department's application for condoning the delay. It found no palpable error warranting the Court's interference and subsequently dismissed the appeal.