2019 (2) TMI 560 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that - As the appeal was preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals) even beyond the extended period of one month after the expiry of the statutory period of two months, it was liable to be dismissed and was rightly dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). There is, therefore, no error in the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) - The appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation under section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing it due to being filed beyond the limitation period under section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant received the order on 8 January, 2018, and according to section 85(3A), the appeal should have been filed within two months from that date, by 8 March, 2018. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the appeal was filed even beyond the extended period of one month allowed under the proviso to section 85(3A). The appellant failed to provide any reason for condoning the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. The appellant's counsel cited the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag vs. Mst Katji, arguing for a liberal approach in condoning the delay. However, this argument was not applicable as the context of the cited case was different from the present scenario under section 85 of the Act. The reliance on the Madras High Court decision in Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy was also deemed irrelevant due to the Supreme Court's ruling in Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur, which clarified the limitations on condoning delays under similar statutory provisions.

3. The Supreme Court's observations in Singh Enterprises case highlighted that the appellate authority can entertain appeals by condoning delays only up to 30 days after the expiry of the normal 60-day appeal period. The statutory provisions, akin to section 85 of the Act, clearly delineate the timeframe for filing appeals and the limited scope for condoning delays. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the High Court were justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay beyond the stipulated period.

4. Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was considered in the Supreme Court's decision, provided a similar framework for appeals and the condonation of delays. As the appeal in the present case was filed beyond the extended period of one month after the two-month statutory deadline, it was rightly dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, there was no error in the Commissioner's order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

5. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The legal analysis emphasized the statutory constraints on condoning delays in filing appeals, as elucidated by relevant judicial precedents and statutory provisions. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals and the limited scope for condoning delays under the law.