2024 (3) TMI 590 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal - impugned order was reviewed by the concerned committee of Chief Commissioner beyond the prescribed period of three Months, from the date of receipt of the order - Section 35E of CEA - HELD THAT - It is seen that as per proviso to Sub-Section (3) only the Board has power to condone the delay in reviewing the order beyond three Months and no other Authority could have condoned the said delay. The Tribunal also has no authority to condone this delay. The Chief Commissioner has no authority to condone such delay or permit the committee of Commissioners to review the order beyond a stipulated period of three months. The provisions for review are to be construed very strictly as has been held by various authorities including the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS MM RUBBER CO. 1991 (9) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it was held that the period of one year fixed under sub- section (3) of Section 35E of the Act should be given its literal meaning and so construed the impugned direction of the Board was beyond the period of limitation prescribed therein and therefore invalid and ineffective. This application for Condonation of delay has been filed without any jurisdiction and authorization. Tribunal does not have any power to consider and condone this delay so the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal u/s 35E of the Act.

The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue along with an application for Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The impugned order was reviewed by the Chief Commissioner's committee beyond the prescribed period of three months from the date of receipt of the order, contravening the provisions of Section 35E of the Act. The Tribunal observed that only the Board has the authority to condone the delay in reviewing the order beyond three months, and no other Authority, including the Tribunal, could have condoned the said delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions for review are to be strictly construed, citing the case law of MM Rubbers [(1991) 55 ELT 289 (SC)], which highlights the importance of adhering to the statutory limitations for invoking remedies against orders. The Tribunal concluded that the application for Condonation of delay was filed without jurisdiction and authorization, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal and Stay application.

In light of the above, it is evident that the Tribunal's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the statutory provisions, emphasizing the limited authority of the Chief Commissioner to condone delays in reviewing orders. The Tribunal's adherence to legal principles and precedents, as highlighted in the case law of MM Rubbers, underscores the importance of upholding procedural requirements and statutory limitations in administrative proceedings. Ultimately, the Tribunal's ruling serves as a reminder of the significance of procedural compliance and adherence to statutory timelines in matters of appeal and review before the Tribunal.