2017 (1) TMI 648 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Condonation of delay - delay of period beyond 30 days after the 60 days time for filing the appeal before the Commissioner (A) - is the delay further condonable? - Held that - the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed in violation of the Division Bench s decision of this Court dated 20.5.2014 and the same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (A) to decide the cases on merit - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Time bar for filing appeals before the Commissioner (A) beyond the condonable period.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed 8 appeals against a common impugned order, which were dismissed by the Commissioner (A) as time-barred for being filed beyond the condonable period of 30 days after the 60 days' time for filing the appeal.
2. The appellant, a private limited company engaged in manufacturing enameled copper wires, faced financial difficulties due to operational mistakes and external factors like escalating copper prices, resulting in reduced sales and a lockout in their unit.
3. Despite the appellant's efforts to restart operations and sell the business, they were served with show-cause notices for delayed duty payment. The appeals were filed after the appellant became aware of adverse orders passed against them, seeking to condone the delay.
4. The appellant argued that the impugned order was unsustainable as it defied the Tribunal's previous decision directing the Commissioner (A) to decide the appeals on merit, not just on the basis of time bar.
5. The Commissioner (A) rejected the appeals based on the delay, while the appellant contended that they were not aware of the orders against them until much later, and the service of orders on security personnel did not constitute proper communication.
6. The learned counsel highlighted the provisions of Section 35(o) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding exclusion of time for obtaining a copy of the order in computing the period of limitation for an appeal.
7. The Tribunal found the impugned order to be in violation of its previous directive, remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (A) to decide the cases on merit after complying with natural justice principles and passing reasoned orders.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of time bar for filing appeals, the circumstances leading to the appeals, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the cases for a merit-based consideration.