2007 (6) TMI 225 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order by Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) and Customs Excise and Gold Control Tribunal's confirmation, applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeal proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner contested the order passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) and confirmed by the Customs Excise and Gold Control Tribunal, seeking exemption from excise duty. The appeal was dismissed due to a delay of four years in filing, with the petitioner requesting condonation of delay within the appeal memo. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Tribunal should be considered a Court, allowing the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to their appeal proceedings.

2. The respondents' counsel contended that the Appellate Tribunal does not qualify as a Court, and thus, Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to appeal proceedings before the Tribunal. They emphasized the abnormal delay and the lack of legal grounds for condoning the delay in the petitioner's case.

3. The legal position clarified that a Tribunal, even if quasi-judicial, does not necessarily equate to being a Court. The distinction lies in the forum having the trappings of a Court to be considered as such.

4. The analysis delved into the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, specifically Section 5, which allows for appeal admission after the prescribed period with sufficient cause. Additionally, Section 29 of the Act was examined to understand the interplay between special or local laws and the general provisions of the Limitation Act.

5. Referring to a previous case, it was established that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) does not function as a Court, and hence, Section 5 and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act do not apply to appeals under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The judgment emphasized that the Commissioner's decisions lack the essential attributes of a judicial pronouncement.

6. The Court concluded that the Appellate Tribunal's decision not to entertain the appeal due to limitation was valid. The petitioner's request for condonation of delay was deemed unwarranted, leading to the dismissal of the petition without interference in the Tribunal's order.

7. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, ruling in favor of the Appellate Tribunal's decision, with no costs imposed on either party.