1997 (12) TMI 416 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, misinterpretation of High Court order, jurisdiction of the Tribunal over interim orders under Section 35F, scope of appeal under Central Excise Act, applicability of High Court directions.

In this case, the appellants sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal beyond the 90-day period allowed by the High Court. The High Court had dismissed a writ petition but allowed the appellant to appeal within 90 days. The appellants misinterpreted the High Court order and initially filed an appeal before the wrong authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), instead of the correct forum, the Tribunal. The delay was due to this misunderstanding. The Senior Manager of the appellant firm argued that they believed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was an interim order under Section 35F, which led to their incorrect appeal filing. However, upon clarification from the Commissioner's office, they filed the appeal before the Tribunal within the extended period. The Tribunal noted that the High Court order did not mention condonation of delay beyond the 90 days, and they were bound by the terms of the order.

Regarding jurisdiction, the Tribunal highlighted that there is no provision for appealing interim orders under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act to the Tribunal. The appealable orders under Section 35B include decisions by the Commissioner of Central Excise, orders by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A, and orders by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Tribunal emphasized that the present order subject to appeal was passed under Section 35F, which is not covered under the appealable orders listed in Section 35B.

The Tribunal acknowledged that despite the statutory limitations, they were bound by the High Court directions to entertain the appeal. However, they suggested that the appellants could approach the High Court for an extension of time for filing the appeal or seek other directions. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the condonation of delay applications and subsequently dismissed the appeals due to the non-condonation of delay. The judgment underscores the importance of correctly interpreting court orders, understanding jurisdictional limitations, and seeking appropriate legal remedies in compliance with statutory provisions.