1990 (3) TMI 157 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility of the Respondents to avail exemption under Notification 89/79 dated 1-3-1979 for goods under T.I.68 of the Central Excise Tariff.
- Preliminary objections raised by the respondent regarding the legality and timeliness of the appeal.

Eligibility of Exemption:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi stemmed from a decision by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay concerning the eligibility of the Respondents to claim exemption under Notification 89/79 for goods under T.I.68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Collector had formed an opinion on the legality and propriety of the Order-in-Appeal, as evidenced by note sheets in the Collectorate file. The Tribunal emphasized that the Collector's formation of opinion was crucial, not the disclosure of specific grounds. Citing precedents, the Tribunal highlighted that the Collector's opinion need not be accompanied by recorded reasons. The Tribunal found the Collector's actions compliant with the statutory requirement under Section 35B(2) of the CESA 1944. It was established that the necessary facts had been presented to the Collector for approval of the draft grounds of appeal, reinforcing the validity of the appeal.

Preliminary Objections:
The respondent raised two preliminary objections: firstly, that the Collector did not express an opinion on the legality of the Order-in-Appeal as required under Section 35B(2) of the CESA 1944, and secondly, that the appeal was time-barred as it was received after the statutory time limit. The Tribunal addressed these objections meticulously. Regarding the first objection, it was ruled that the Collector had indeed formed the necessary opinion, rendering the objection unsustainable. Concerning the second objection, the Tribunal clarified the procedural aspect of filing an appeal before a Special Bench or a Regional Bench. It was established that the substantive right of filing an appeal granted by statute could not be affected by the procedural choice of bench. The Tribunal emphasized that if the appeal before the Special Bench was time-barred, the department could file for condonation of delay, a practice previously followed in similar circumstances. Ultimately, both objections raised by the respondent were overruled, affirming the maintainability of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dismissed the preliminary objections raised by the respondent and directed the registry to schedule a hearing for the appeal on its merits, thereby ensuring the continuation of the legal proceedings in the case.