2018 (6) TMI 991 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - the appeal has been filed after 104 days of receipt of the impugned order by the appellant - power of Commissioner (A) to condone delay beyond 30 days - Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act - Held that - The issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the catena of judgments in favor of the assessee - reliance placed in the case of SONIA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2014 (9) TMI 975 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , where it was held that Section 14 of the 1963 Act is applicable to the proceedings under the 1962 Act in respect of an appeal provided under Section 128 and the time spent in the High Court in the abortive attempt to invoke its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution will have to be excluded. Case remanded back to the Commissioner (A) to decide the same on merits, after following the principles of Natural Justice.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal dismissed on time bar by Commissioner (A) - Delay in filing appeal - Power to condone delay beyond 30 days - Date of receipt of appeal - Applicability of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act - Jurisdictional issues in filing appeal - Precedents cited by appellant for condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around an appeal directed against an order dismissing the appeal on time bar by the Commissioner (A) due to a delay of 104 days in filing the appeal. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing parts of motor vehicles, availed CENVAT credit but faced demand for irregularly availed credit. The Commissioner (A) observed the delay beyond 30 days, which was beyond his condonable power. The appellant argued that the appeal was sent to LTU before the due date, and any delay should be condoned under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act. Citing various judgments, the appellant contended that filing before the wrong jurisdictional authority should not result in delay. The appellant relied on precedents like Lathia Industries Supplies Co. Pvt. Ltd. and MP Steel Corporation to support their case.

The appellant's argument was supported by the decision in MP Steel Corporation, where it was held that filing before the wrong jurisdictional authority should not contribute to delay. The Tribunal, after considering submissions and precedents, concluded that the issue was settled in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the Commissioner (A) for a decision on merits while following principles of natural justice. The judgment highlights the importance of jurisdictional issues in filing appeals and the applicability of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act in condoning delays beyond the prescribed period.

This judgment underscores the significance of adhering to jurisdictional requirements in filing appeals and the applicability of legal provisions like Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act in condoning delays. It also emphasizes the reliance on precedents to support arguments related to delay in filing appeals before the appropriate authority. The decision serves as a reminder of the need for a thorough understanding of jurisdictional aspects and legal provisions to ensure timely and effective recourse in legal proceedings.