2003 (4) TMI 182 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed by M/s. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Limited, concerning the condonability of the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellants argued that the delay should be condoned based on the Supreme Court's Order dated 3-8-2000, which stated that the time bar should not prevent the condonation of delay and that the application should be heard on merits. They contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered the appeal on merit, citing the decision in the case of Madura Coats Ltd. v. CCE and Mukund A. Sayani v. UOI. However, the Departmental Representative argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) can only condone the delay for a period of 3 months under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, relying on the decision in Shanti Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's Order did not explicitly condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. The Supreme Court directed the Appellants to file an application seeking condonation of delay, which would be heard and decided on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal disagreed with the Appellant's interpretation that the time bar was expressly removed by the Supreme Court, citing previous judgments emphasizing adherence to statutory limitations. The Tribunal referenced cases like Miles India Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Customs and UOI v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co., highlighting the importance of statutory provisions and limitations on authorities. The Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not condonable beyond the statutory limit of 3 months, leading to the rejection of the appeal filed by the Appellants.

In summary, the Tribunal analyzed the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the context of the Supreme Court's Order and statutory provisions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and rejected the appeal, as the delay exceeded the permissible period for condonation as per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act.