2017 (3) TMI 224 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - delay in reopening of a case - Held that - where the Tribunal has taken an opinion not to file an appeal and the matter has attained finality then after a lapse of one and half years, the same matter should not be reopened - The delay is to be condoned only in exceptional circumstances and no exceptional circumstances were there in the present case to condone the delay - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the initial decision of the Committee of Commissioners not to file an appeal debars the department from filing an appeal under Section 35B (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
2. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in rejecting the delay condonation application without considering the substantial government revenue involved and the mistake in the belief of authorities causing the delay?
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the delay condonation application and deciding that certain by-products are marketable excisable goods liable to central excise duty?

Analysis:

1. The first issue revolves around the department's appeal filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act against an order of the Tribunal. The key question is whether the initial decision of the Committee not to file an appeal due to a mistake of law debars the department from filing an appeal later. The Court refers to a previous judgment where it was held that delay condonation should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances, and no exceptional circumstances were found in the present case. Ultimately, the Court upholds the Tribunal's decision, answering the question in favor of the assessee and against the department.

2. Moving on to the second issue, the Tribunal's rejection of the delay condonation application is challenged on the grounds that a substantial amount of government revenue was involved, and the delay was caused by a mistake in the belief of authorities. However, the Court finds that the reasons given by the Tribunal for rejecting the delay condonation application were justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court rules in favor of the assessee and dismisses the appeal, stating that there is no merit in the appeal and no costs are awarded.

3. Lastly, the third issue questions whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the delay condonation application and deciding that certain by-products are marketable excisable goods liable to central excise duty. The Court's analysis indicates that the Tribunal's decision was justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court upholds the Tribunal's order, answering the questions of law in favor of the assessee and against the department. The appeal is ultimately dismissed, with no costs awarded.