2020 (3) TMI 738 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - exclusion of the time consumed by the appellant for pursuing the remedy before the adjudicating authority is required to be reduced in terms of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 - whether the appeal filed by the appellant before him on 11.01.2018 is barred by limitation or not, in which the appellant has challenged the order dt. 17.01.2017? - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the time consumed by the appellant till 22.06.2017 is required to be excluded in terms of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, but thereafter the appellant did not file the appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) within time and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to extend the period of limitation in terms of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Admittedly, the appellant did not follow the advice given by the adjudicating authority vide letter dt. 22.06.2017. The appeal filed by the appellant before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is barred by limitation - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against dismissal of refund claim as time-barred.
2. Entitlement to claim interest on refund amount.
3. Interpretation of limitation period for filing appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the dismissal of their refund claim as time-barred. The case involved a series of events starting from the appellant paying duty under protest in 1997-98, followed by a refund claim filed in 2000, which was partially rejected in 2002. Subsequent appeals and orders led to the Tribunal directing the department to release the refund amount within 30 days. The issue arose when the appellant sought interest on the refund amount, which was not addressed in the subsequent order. The appellant's argument was that the time spent pursuing the interest claim should not be counted towards the limitation period for filing an appeal, citing a relevant case law for support.

2. The appellant contended that the Revenue was obligated to refund the amount along with interest as per the Tribunal's order, and since the interest issue was not resolved in subsequent orders, they had the right to pursue it until late 2017. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the appellant should have challenged the order within two months of receipt, and the subsequent correspondence did not extend the limitation period for filing an appeal. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address the merit of the interest claim, focusing solely on the limitation issue.

3. The Tribunal examined the letters exchanged between the appellant and the adjudicating authority, where the authority repeatedly directed the appellant to file an appeal if aggrieved by the order. Despite this, the appellant continued to pursue the matter with the authority. The Tribunal referred to a relevant case where time spent pursuing a remedy before the authority could be excluded for limitation purposes. However, it was emphasized that the appellant failed to heed the advice to file an appeal within the prescribed time frame. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed time-barred, as the appellant did not follow the direction to challenge the order in a higher forum within the limitation period.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the limitation period rendered it time-barred. The Tribunal refrained from delving into the merit of the interest claim as the focus was on the issue of limitation.