2023 (10) TMI 1214 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeal) - HELD THAT - In terms of Section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, it is observed that the appeal was to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeal) within two months of the date of the receipt of the order in original by the appellant. As per the proviso Commissioner (Appeal) has been granted the power to condone delay of one month in filing the appeal on sufficient cause being shown - In the present case appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeal) after more than a year from the date of receipt of order in original. Hence Commissioner (Appeal) has rightly held that appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and has dismissed the same on this ground alone. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it has been held that Commissioner (Appeals) could not condone the delay beyond the 30 days in filing the appeal before him. There are no merits in this appeal filed by the appellant - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) under Section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Summary:
The appeal was filed after more than a year from the receipt of the original order, which was beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Commissioner (Appeal) rightly dismissed the appeal on this ground alone, as per the provisions of Section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeal) has the power to condone a delay of one month in filing the appeal on sufficient cause being shown, but in this case, the delay exceeded the permissible limit. The issue is in line with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Singh Enterprises, where it was held that the appellate authority can only condone the delay up to a specified period, and there is no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond that period. The judgment emphasizes that sufficient cause must be shown for condonation of delay, and there cannot be a standard formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation provided. In this case, the abnormal delay of nearly 20 months was not justified by the reasons given, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the miscellaneous application was disposed of.

Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.