2017 (2) TMI 760 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - condonation of delay - Held that - issue is related to only two parties i.e. M/s. Metro Shoes Ltd. and M/s. Metro Shoes, therefore, appeals lie only against these two parties - Revenue has no authority to file any appeal against the persons other than M/s. Metro Shoes Ltd. and M/s. Metro Shoes, therefore appeals filed in respect of above eight persons are not maintainable. As regard the COD Applications of M/s. Metro Shoes, since main appeal of M/s. Metro Shoes Ltd. was filed in time, this appeal of M/s. Metro Shoes being supplementary appeal, COD application can be allowed. Other appeals dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeals.
2. Maintainability of appeals against specific parties.
3. Consideration of COD applications.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed an appeal regarding M/s. Metro Shoes Ltd., which later led to the filing of 9 supplementary appeals along with COD applications. The Special Counsel for the Revenue requested condonation for the delay in filing these additional appeals. The Respondent's Counsel argued that the main appeal was filed in 2007, and the subsequent appeals were filed after a significant delay of over nine years.

2. The review order by the Committee of Commissioners highlighted specific points for consideration. It was noted that the issues regarding whether the activities of the assessee amounted to manufacture and the dropping of duty demand were related to only two parties, M/s. Metro Shoes Ltd. and M/s. Metro Shoes. The review order clarified that the Revenue's appeal did not challenge the portion of the order related to refraining from imposing penalties on eight individuals listed. Consequently, it was determined that the Revenue had no authority to file appeals against these eight individuals, and the appeals against them were deemed not maintainable.

3. Regarding the COD applications, it was decided that since the main appeal of M/s. Metro Shoes Ltd. was filed on time, the supplementary appeal of M/s. Metro Shoes could be allowed. Therefore, the COD application of the Revenue against M/s. Metro Shoes was permitted. However, the appeals against the eight individuals were dismissed as not maintainable, along with their respective COD applications. The Revenue's appeal against M/s. Metro Shoes Ltd. was scheduled for regular hearing on a specified date.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai addresses the issues of condonation of delay, maintainability of appeals against specific parties, and the consideration of COD applications in a thorough manner, preserving the legal terminology and key points from the original text.