1986 (3) TMI 184 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Amendment of the date of service in the appeal memorandum.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Applicability of erstwhile Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
4. Arguments regarding vested rights and equity.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Amendment of the Date of Service in the Appeal Memorandum:
The appellant, Collector of Central Excise, Madras, moved an application to amend the date of service in the appeal memorandum from 12-4-1982 to 27-4-1982. This amendment was allowed by a separate order dated 20-2-1986, ensuring that para No. 3 of form E.A.3 should be read as 27-4-1982.

2. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining the day-wise delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was received in the Registry on 22-11-1982, beyond the six-month period allowed by the Removal of Difficulties Order No. GSR 597(E), dated 11-10-1982. The application for condonation of delay detailed the internal processing timeline from 27-4-1982 to 18-11-1982.

The learned SDR, Shri B.R. Tripathi, argued that the delay should be condoned as the Revenue had a right to review the matter within one year under the erstwhile Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. He contended that the substantive right of review was not lost due to the change in law and that the delay of 26 days should be condoned as the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause.

In contrast, the learned Advocate for the respondent, Shri M. Chandrasekharan, argued that there was no sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. He referred to judgments from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, emphasizing that the application for condonation of delay lacked proper explanation and was not supported by an affidavit. He also cited a Tribunal judgment stating that "vesting of rights" cannot be pleaded by the State.

3. Applicability of Erstwhile Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The learned SDR argued that the Revenue had a right to review the matter within one year from the date of the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise under the erstwhile Section 36. However, the Tribunal observed that the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay were insufficient to conclude that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause. The Tribunal referenced a larger Bench decision in the case of Atma Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh, which held that there is no vested right in the case of the State.

4. Arguments Regarding Vested Rights and Equity:
The Tribunal examined the argument of vested rights and concluded that the concept of vested rights exists only in favor of private citizens and not the State. The Tribunal cited multiple legal sources and judgments to support this view, including Black's Law Dictionary and Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes. The Tribunal rejected the SDR's argument that the application for condonation of delay should be accepted on grounds of equity, stating that the respondent's timely appeal could not deprive them of their rights due to the late filing by the Revenue.

Conclusion:
After thorough consideration, the Tribunal held that the applicants were not prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as it was hit by limitation.

← Previous Next →