1987 (10) TMI 247 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with the requirements of Section 35-B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Compliance with Section 35-B(2):
The issue in question revolved around whether the Assistant Collector who signed and verified the appeal was duly authorized as per Section 35-B(2) of the Act. The Appellate Collector submitted an order from the Collector authorizing the filing of the appeal, which was contested by the Respondent's counsel. The Respondent argued that the order did not fulfill the requirements of Section 35-B(2) as it lacked examination by the Collector and a clear direction for filing the appeal by the Assistant Collector. The Respondent emphasized that the decision for filing an appeal must be that of the Collector, starting with the Collector's examination, not a subordinate's suggestion. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that even if the initial steps were taken by a subordinate, the final decision by the Collector sufficed under Section 35-B(2). The Tribunal overruled the objection, concluding that the Collector's authorization was valid.

Condonation of Delay:
Regarding the delay in filing the appeal, the Assistant Collector claimed that the order was received late, justifying the delay in filing. The Respondent argued that the date of receipt by the Assistant Collector should determine the commencement of the limitation period, which was not adequately explained. Section 35-B(3) stipulates a three-month filing period from the date of communication of the order to the Collector. The Tribunal clarified that the relevant date for limitation commencement was the communication from the Appellate Collector to the Collector of Central Excise. In this case, the law changed, requiring the Appellate Collector to communicate the order to the Collector. The Assistant Collector confirmed not receiving the order directly, leading the Tribunal to conclude that limitation had not even started running, thus no delay condonation was necessary. Both objections were overruled, and the appeal was scheduled for a hearing on merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the validity of the Collector's authorization for filing the appeal and dismissed the need for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the importance of compliance with statutory provisions and the correct interpretation of limitation periods in such cases.