2017 (6) TMI 1000 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal - determination of date of service of order - Precedent - Scope of writ court - maintainability of appeal - time limitation - case of appellant is that the order in original passed by the authorities was not served upon the petitioner. Consequently the petitioner could not file the appeal within the statutory period - Held that - The scope of a writ Court and an appeal Court in respect of an order passed by a statutory authority are different. A writ court can interfere if the petitioner substantiates that, there has been breach of principles of natural justice or that, the impugned order suffers from such perversity so as to shock the conscience of the Court or that, the impugned order is vitiated by malice or has been rendered wholly without jurisdiction. In the present case, no facade of breach of principles of natural justice is pressed into service by the petitioner in assailing the three orders. CESTAT in its second impugned order is of the view that, it is to follow the decision of the High Court as it is of superior authority rather than the larger Bench of the CESTAT itself. As a writ Court, I am not concerned with the decision per se of the authority rather the decision making process of the authority as noted above. I find no material irregularity in decision making process of the authority in respect of any of the two impugned orders to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to three orders passed by authorities - one by Appellate Authority and two by Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
2. Service of the original order to the petitioner and the limitation period for filing an appeal.
3. Consideration of a High Court judgment by CESTAT without allowing petitioner to address it.
4. Compliance with the initial order directing deposit of money.
5. Alleged breach of natural justice in the proceedings.
6. Applicability of the decision of a larger Bench of CESTAT.
7. Mode of service of the order by speed post and its validity under the Central Excise Act 1944.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged three orders passed by authorities, including the Appellate Authority and CESTAT. The primary issue revolved around the service of the original order to the petitioner and the subsequent limitation period for filing an appeal. The petitioner argued that the order in original was served late, affecting the appeal's timeliness. The petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority erroneously assumed the service date, leading to the appeal being considered time-barred. Additionally, the petitioner raised concerns about the mode of service, highlighting that speed post was not a valid method under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act 1944 at the relevant time, citing legal precedents to support this argument.

Another key issue was the consideration of a High Court judgment by CESTAT without affording the petitioner an opportunity to address it. The petitioner claimed a breach of natural justice in the proceedings, emphasizing the importance of fair hearings and the right to respond to all relevant information. The petitioner also stressed compliance with the initial order directing the deposit of money, indicating adherence to the tribunal's directives.

Furthermore, the petitioner argued about the applicability of a decision by a larger Bench of CESTAT, asserting that such decisions should be binding on the Division Bench. Legal precedents were cited to support this contention, emphasizing the importance of judicial discipline and respect for prior decisions within the tribunal.

The judgment analyzed these issues comprehensively. The Court examined the arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the legal requirements for service of orders and the decision-making processes of the authorities involved. Ultimately, the Court found no substantial irregularities in the decision-making processes of the authorities to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the lack of grounds for intervention based on the presented arguments and legal provisions.