2019 (8) TMI 1230 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 26 days in filing appeal - effective date when corrigendum issued - HELD THAT - The appeal was filed within 90 days i.e. normal period of 60 days plus condonable period of 30 days. Moreover, appeal was filed within 60 days from the date of corrigendum. Once the corrigendum was issued the effective date of issue of order should be taken from the date of corrigendum, not from the initial order issued by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, on both the counts, the appeal should have been admitted and decided on merit. The he appeal was filed within 90 days i.e. normal period of 60 days plus condonable period of 30 days. Moreover, appeal was filed within 60 days from the date of corrigendum - Once the corrigendum was issued the effective date of issue of order should be taken from the date of corrigendum, not from the initial order issued by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, on both the counts, the appeal should have been admitted and decided on merit.

Summary

Issues: Appeal dismissed on grounds of time bar.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the dismissal of an appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of being time-barred. The appellant, represented by Mr. Willingdon Christian, argued that the appeal was filed with a delay of 26 days after the normal 60-day period but within the condonable period of 30 days. The delay was attributed to the issuance of a corrigendum after the initial order, leading to the belief that the appeal was filed within the stipulated time frame. On the other hand, Mr. G. Jha, representing the Revenue, reiterated the grounds of appeal.

Upon careful consideration, the Member (Judicial) found that the appeal was filed within the extended period of 90 days, comprising the normal 60-day period and the condonable 30-day period. It was noted that the appeal was lodged within 60 days from the date of the corrigendum, which effectively altered the issuance date of the original order. Consequently, the judgment concluded that the appeal should have been accepted and deliberated on merit. The impugned order was set aside, directing the matter to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a merit-based decision without delving into the issue of delay. Notably, it was emphasized that an appeal dismissed on grounds of being time-barred cannot be entertained on merit, hence the remand for a fresh consideration.

In essence, the judgment highlights the significance of adhering to procedural timelines in legal matters while underscoring the need for a fair and unbiased assessment of appeals based on their merits, separate from procedural constraints.