1998 (11) TMI 143 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay application vs. stay application
2. Duty demand for non-production of proof of exports
3. Rejection of appeal as barred by time
4. Failure to reply to show cause notice
5. Issue of personal hearing intimations
6. Condonation of delays with direction to accept proof of export
7. Withdrawal of duty demand

Analysis:
1. The advocate representing the Applicants argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide a reason for taking up the condonation of delay application instead of the stay application as directed by the Hon'ble High Court. This discrepancy was highlighted during the hearing.

2. The case involved a duty demand of Rs. 3,38,660.05 imposed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise for non-production of proof of exports under bond as per Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A penalty of Rs. 1,000 was also levied as per Rule 14A. The Applicants moved the Hon'ble High Court seeking relief, which directed the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) to dispose of the stay application and refrain from coercive action for recovery.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as time-barred, as it was filed after the prescribed period of three months for filing an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The extension of time was not granted due to the lack of proper reasons provided by the Applicants for the delay.

4. The Government noted that the Applicants not only failed to submit proof of export but also did not reply to the show cause notice issued earlier. Despite claiming non-receipt of personal hearing intimations, the Applicants were expected to actively engage with the Department and respond in a timely manner. The delay in filing responses and appeals was viewed unfavorably.

5. While the issue of personal hearing intimations was raised by the Applicants, the Government emphasized the importance of timely communication and active participation in the proceedings. The Applicants were expected to inquire about any scheduled hearings and respond accordingly, especially if no written replies were submitted.

6. In a special consideration to encourage exports, the Government decided to condone all delays upon submission and verification of proof of export. Upon acceptance of the proof, the duty demand was to be withdrawn. However, no interference was made regarding the penalty imposed in the case.

7. Consequently, the Government ordered the withdrawal of the duty demand upon admittance of the proofs of export, while maintaining the penalty imposed based on the circumstances of the case. The decision aimed to balance the interests of encouraging exports with adherence to procedural requirements and timely responses in legal proceedings.