1996 (8) TMI 131 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to validity of orders passed by Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and Additional Collector of Customs & Central Excise for being illegal and arbitrary. Representation of appeal before the Tribunal and the reasonableness of the time taken for representation.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a partnership firm dealing in manufacturing Metal Containers, challenged the validity of orders passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and the Additional Collector of Customs & Central Excise. The petitioner availed the facility of MODVAT credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules but faced issues regarding evidence of payment of duty on inputs. The Additional Collector issued a show cause notice demanding duty payment. The matter was remanded to the Additional Collector for fresh disposal, leading to a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,73,105.22. The petitioner appealed this decision before the Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed due to a delay in representation.

The petitioner contended that as per the rules, no specific time limit was fixed for representation of the appeal, hence there was no delay. However, the Court disagreed, stating that representation must be within a reasonable time. The Court noted that under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the time allowed for filing an appeal is 90 days. The Court emphasized that what constitutes a reasonable time for representation is a factual determination based on various factors, including the nature of defects to be rectified and the time allowed for filing the appeal. In this case, the defect was only verification by the petitioner, which should not have taken nine months to rectify. The Court also highlighted that the petitioner's application to condone the delay citing the consultant's illness was not supported by evidence, as no medical certificate or documents were produced.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that the nine-month delay in representation was unreasonable. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal, stating that there was no error of law justifying interference in the impugned orders. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed at the stage of admission.