2000 (5) TMI 367 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, which was later rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred due to a delay in filing. The appellants had not filed a separate application for condonation of delay but mentioned in their appeal memo that their factory was closed for a significant period, leading to the delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal solely on the ground of being time-barred without delving into the merits of the case.

Upon careful examination, the judge noted that while there was no formal application for condonation of delay, the circumstances of the appellants being a sick unit and their factory being closed were evident from the records. The judge found that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered these circumstances while deciding on the delay issue. It was highlighted that the appeal was filed within the extended period provided by law, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had the statutory power to condone such delay under the Central Excise Act.

In light of the circumstances and to serve the ends of justice, the judge decided to allow the appeal by condoning the delay in filing. The judge directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to proceed with hearing the appeal on its merits after providing a reasonable opportunity for the appellants to present their case. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for further proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) on its merits.