1998 (2) TMI 266 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed beyond statutory time limit under Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Request for condonation of delay in filing appeal.
3. Justification for condoning the delay.
4. Consideration of principles of natural justice in refund claims.
5. Adequacy of reasons for appeal delay.
6. Comparison with Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions on condonation of delay.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved two appeals by M/s. Delton Cables Ltd. challenging a common order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, which dismissed the appeals due to being filed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The appellant's representative, Shri Harbans Singh, argued for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, citing the lack of information provided by the adjudicating authority regarding the rejected refund claims. On the other hand, Shri Satnam Singh, representing the respondent, contended that the reasons for the delay were not sufficient and supported the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal examined the matter, which pertained to refund claims, where certain amounts were deducted by the adjudicating authority based on the principles of natural justice. It was noted that the goods in question were supplied to local consumers or dealers without a telecommunication network, making it difficult to ascertain if the goods were used as required by relevant regulations.

The Tribunal found that the appellants received adjudication orders on different dates in 1985 and failed to file appeals within the stipulated three-month period. Despite the appellant's argument for the need for additional information before filing the appeal, the delay was not deemed justifiable.

Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji and the Tribunal's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Akry Rasayan, the appellant's reliance on the need for more information from the adjudicating authority was deemed insufficient grounds for the delayed appeals.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals)' decision, concluding that there was no justification to interfere with the dismissal of the appeals. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed based on the lack of sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing.