2018 (12) TMI 1240 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Time Limitation - service of order - Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - Tribunal could have examined the matter on merits. Since very often, several appeals are filed before this Court by the Department with delay of more than 300 days. In case, the delay in presenting the papers also is more than 200 days, yet the Court exercises its discretion and condone the delay, so that the parties can agitate the matter on merits and a decision can be taken on the questions of law raised - Law of limitation is founded on principles of public policy so as to attach penalty to a proceeding. Limitation is not intended to destroy the rights of parties. No prudent man would purposely lodge an appeal belatedly, unless and until the person has some mala fide intention to do so. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the date of receipt of orders in appeal.
2. Delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal.
3. Payment of duty, interest, and penalty prior to show cause notice.
4. Application of limitation provisions.
5. Consideration of merits by the Tribunal.

Interpretation of the date of receipt of orders in appeal:
The primary issue in this case revolved around the date of receipt of the Orders in Appeal by the appellant. The appellant contested the correctness of considering 10.12.2014 as the date of receipt of the orders, highlighting the absence of proof of delivery, which is mandatory under relevant legal provisions. The appellant's argument was based on the contention that the date of receipt is crucial for determining the timelines for further actions.

Delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal:
The appellant faced challenges regarding delays in filing appeals before the Tribunal. The delays were attributed to multiple factors, including the alleged non-receipt of the original orders, subsequent communication gaps, and the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order. The Department pointed out the significant delay of 390 days between various stages of the appeal process, raising concerns about adherence to statutory timelines.

Payment of duty, interest, and penalty prior to show cause notice:
An important aspect of the case involved the appellant's assertion that they had paid the entire duty and interest even before the issuance of the show cause notice. The appellant emphasized the timely payment and appropriation of duty and penalty amounts, seeking to demonstrate compliance with financial obligations despite procedural delays in the appeal process.

Application of limitation provisions:
The discussion also delved into the application of limitation provisions and their underlying principles. The Court emphasized that limitations are designed to uphold public policy and should not unduly prejudice the rights of parties involved. The Court highlighted the absence of any malicious intent in the appellant's actions and stressed the importance of allowing parties to pursue their cases on merits, even in cases of procedural delays.

Consideration of merits by the Tribunal:
Ultimately, the Court directed the matter to be remanded to the Tribunal for a decision on merits. The Court underscored the importance of examining cases on their substantive legal grounds, emphasizing the need to balance procedural requirements with the fundamental right of parties to present their arguments effectively. The judgment favored the appellant, allowing them the opportunity to address all relevant points, including the imposition of penalties under specific legal provisions.

← Previous Next →