2004 (11) TMI 249 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal seeking condonation.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI was against an order of the Commissioner dated 4-12-1998. The appellants, steel re-rollers under the Compounded Levy Scheme, challenged the Commissioner's decision on the grounds that their furnace was of the Batch type, not as determined by the Commissioner. The appeal was filed on 26-04-2004, with a delay of 1883 days, seeking condonation of the delay. During the period between the Commissioner's order and the appeal filing, there were collateral proceedings leading to a demand of duty confirmed against the appellants. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) affirming the duty demand was under appeal before the Tribunal. Realization during these proceedings prompted the appellants to file the current appeal.

The appellants claimed that the delay was due to their proprietor's illiteracy and lack of awareness of legal requirements. They contended that they only realized in January 2000 that they were paying excess duty based on the ACP order. The delay was sought to be condoned based on this realization. However, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the application for condonation. The application was in a different name from the appellant, and no valid reason was provided for the delay. The only reason cited was the realization in January 2000 about excess duty payment. The Tribunal found this reason inconsistent with the claim of pursuing a wrong remedy against the ACP order. The Tribunal also highlighted the appellants' gross negligence in not promptly challenging the ACP order after realizing the excess duty payment.

Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal. The decision was based on the lack of satisfactory explanation for the delay and the inconsistency in the grounds presented. The Tribunal emphasized the appellants' negligence and failure to provide a valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal against the Commissioner's order.