2003 (11) TMI 172 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an application for condonation of delay in filing an Appeal against an Order-in-Appeal. The delay was 1068 days, attributed to the Commissioner's inadvertent acceptance of the impugned Order based on a misimpression regarding the period involved. The Revenue submitted an Affidavit explaining the delay and relied on the decision in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, emphasizing the need for pragmatism in considering sufficient cause for delay. However, the opposing party argued that the successor Commissioner cannot review the decision of the predecessor, making the Appeal not maintainable. The opposing party also pointed out deficiencies in the Affidavit filed by the Revenue, highlighting the lack of support for the main grounds of the delay application. It was contended that the Department was not under any misconception as an Appeal against the Commissioner's Adjudication Order was pending in the Tribunal.

The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and concluded that a change of opinion by the Department regarding the filing of the Appeal cannot be a sufficient ground for condoning a delay of over 1000 days. The Tribunal noted that the Affidavit filed by the Revenue did not adequately support the main plea for condonation of delay, as no material was provided to substantiate the claim of the impugned Order being accepted inadvertently. Additionally, it was observed that a show cause notice dated 31-1-1997, adjudicated by the Commissioner, had an Appeal allowed by the Tribunal and was further appealed before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for not presenting the Appeal within the specified period under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal deemed the abnormal delay of over 1000 days as inadequately explained, thus rejecting the Application for condonation of delay and dismissing the Appeal accordingly.