2018 (8) TMI 89 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 21 days in filing appeal - Held that - The ground stated in the appeal memo that the order was sent to the factory office that was received by the security personnel is not a convincing ground in the sense that such important registered letter cannot be dealt in such casual manner and assigned to the security personnel to handle the same and it appears improbable that such letter would take more than 3 weeks to travel a distance of 20 km to reach its head office - Therefore no illegality or infirmity is found in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Delay condonation in filing appeal, imposition of excise duty on packaging material for export, refusal to produce rewarehousing certificate, misstatement of facts, suppression of delay, ethical practices in litigation.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner(Appeals)'s order refusing to condone a 21-day delay in filing the appeal and not addressing the imposition of excise duty on packaging material used for food export. The appellant argued that the appeal was initially filed within the limitation period but was dismissed due to the delay. The case was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for examination of evidence and reasons for delay. The appellant also cited a Board circular regarding warehousing certificates for consignors. The Commissioner found discrepancies in the date of receipt of the order-in-original, leading to the delay. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision on the delay issue.

The appellant's delay condonation petition mentioned security personnel receiving the order at a factory 20 km away, causing the delay. However, this plea was not raised while filing the appeal, leading the Commissioner to view it as a misstatement. The Tribunal highlighted that such actions could amount to fraud as per legal precedents. Citing judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and the consequences of fraudulent practices in litigation.

Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal discussed the impact of fraud on court proceedings and the court's inherent power to set aside orders obtained through fraudulent means. The Tribunal noted that the suppression of the initial 28-day delay by the appellant affected the case's integrity. The reasons provided by the appellant for the delay were deemed unconvincing, especially considering the handling of important registered letters by security personnel. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's decision, upholding the order and dismissing the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, emphasizing the importance of ethical practices in litigation and the consequences of fraudulent conduct on court proceedings. The judgment was pronounced on 26.07.2018.