2020 (2) TMI 541 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - rebate claim - HELD THAT - A plain reading of the provision of law in section 35-G, being section 35-G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reveals that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal other than the exceptions as specified in section 35-G (1) only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Determination of the date of receipt of the order.
3. Applicability of the period of limitation.
4. Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay beyond the prescribed period.
5. Rejection of the appeal on the ground of time bar.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a Central Excise Appeal challenging the rejection of a rebate claim by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant filed three appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) after a part of the claim was rejected. The issue arose due to a delay of 211 days in filing the appeals, as the order was deemed to have been served on the appellant on December 2, 2015.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the order, along with the sanctioned amount cheques, was handed over to the appellant's representative on the same date. The appellant disputed the receipt of the Order-In-Original on the mentioned date, but the Dispatch Register and lack of documentary evidence supporting the claim favored the conclusion that the order was indeed served on December 2, 2015.

3. The period of limitation for filing the appeal was 60 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order, which would have expired around March 2, 2016. However, the appeals were filed on July 1, 2016, with a delay of 211 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the power to condone the delay beyond the prescribed 30 days under the Act, as established by legal precedent.

4. Citing the Supreme Court decision in a relevant case, the judgment emphasized that the delay of 211 days in filing the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) led to the rightful rejection of the appeals on the ground of time bar. The Appellate Authority found no infirmity in the order and rejected all three appeals filed by the appellant.

5. The judgment highlighted the provision of law regarding appeals to the High Court from orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing that such appeals must involve a substantial question of law. Since the case did not present any substantial question of law, the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of delay in filing the appeal, determination of the date of receipt of the order, the period of limitation, the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay, and the ultimate rejection of the appeals on the ground of time bar, culminating in the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court.