9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 177 - HC - Central ExcisePeriod of limitation for filing an appeal before Commissioner(Appeals) - failure of the Commissioner(Appeals) and CESTAT to follow the directions of the HC - demand of duty - Aluminium Dross - HELD THAT - The ground of time bar is a technical bar to the maintainability of the appeal before the competent forum and even if beyond a period, the time bar cannot be relaxed by the Appellate Authority itself, but, when once there was an intervention by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge of this court clearly expressed in the order that a period of approximately six years was to be excluded from the period of limitation, merely because the learned Single Judge did not direct further to decide the Appeal on merits, in our opinion, the learned CESTAT should not have dismissed the Appeal on the same ground without deciding the merits of the Appeal. Even both the first Appellate Authority and the final Appellate Authority ought to have decided the Appeal on merits at least after the intervention of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order passed by the first Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal are set aside and the Appeal is restored to the Commissioner(Appeals) where the parties may appear in the first instance without any further notice on 12.9.2019 and the said Commissioner(Appeals) will decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties within a period of six months from today - Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Appeal against order of CESTAT dismissing appeal as time-barred. 2. Interpretation of High Court order granting exclusion of time period. 3. Applicability of time bar in filing appeals. 4. Duty of Appellate Authorities to decide appeals on merits. 5. Delay in filing appeal and reasons for delay. 6. Compensation for Revenue's interest. Analysis: 1. The appellant, Vedanta Limited, filed an appeal against the order of CESTAT which refused to decide the matter on the grounds of time limitation, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal held that since the Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeal as time-barred, they cannot review the merits of the case. The Tribunal cited case laws and rejected the appeal, following the decision of the Apex Court in Singh Enterprises. 2. The appellant argued that a writ petition granted by the High Court allowed for the exclusion of approximately six years from the period of limitation. The appellant contended that the Tribunal should have considered the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it solely on the basis of time limitation. The High Court noted that the time bar is a technical bar to appeal maintainability, but in this case, the High Court intervention directed the exclusion of a significant period from the limitation period. The Court opined that the Tribunal should have decided the appeal on merits after the High Court's intervention. 3. The Court highlighted that the delay in filing the appeal was substantial, with a delay of 391 days from a large company like the appellant. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the Order in Original not being duly received, but later produced as proof of service before the Commissioner(Appeals). The Court acknowledged the delay but noted that the appeal should be decided on merits, especially after the High Court's intervention. 4. The Court emphasized that both the first Appellate Authority and the final Appellate Authority should decide appeals on merits, particularly after High Court intervention. The Tribunal's failure to understand the High Court's order led to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred, which the Court disagreed with. The Court directed the Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with the law, setting aside the orders of the first Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. 5. To compensate for the Revenue's interest, the Court directed the appellant to pay a cost of ?1,00,000 to the Revenue Department. The Commissioner(Appeals) was instructed to decide the appeal on merits within six months, allowing both parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The Court disposed of the appeal, restoring it to the Commissioner(Appeals) for further proceedings.
|
