2000 (5) TMI 374 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Determination of Annual Capacity of Production

Delay in filing appeal:
The appeal faced a delay of 775 days in filing, requiring consideration for condonation. The appellant's representative argued that the delay was due to the Commissioner's order communicated by the Assistant Commissioner, not constituting a speaking order. They cited previous Tribunal decisions, emphasizing the need for a speaking order by the Commissioner in adjudication proceedings. The appellant requested condonation based on the Tribunal's decision in a similar case. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the order, though communicated by the Assistant Commissioner, was attributed to the Commissioner, justifying the appeal's significant delay.

Condonation of delay:
The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and records, noting that the Commissioner determined the Annual Capacity without issuing a speaking order. Referring to a previous case involving a similar situation, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a speaking order by the Commissioner in adjudication proceedings. As no such order existed when the matter was considered, the application for condonation of delay was deemed infructuous. Following the precedent set in the previous case, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for reevaluation and re-fixing of the Annual Capacity through a proper speaking order, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements and principles of natural justice.

Determination of Annual Capacity of Production:
The issue revolved around the Commissioner fixing the Annual Capacity of the appellant's unit under Section 3A without issuing a speaking order. The Tribunal highlighted that Section 3A empowers only the Commissioner to make such determinations through speaking orders in adjudication proceedings. Drawing parallels with a previous case, the Tribunal reiterated the importance of a speaking order by the Commissioner for proper adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh consideration and re-fixing of the Annual Capacity, emphasizing the need for a speaking order to ensure procedural compliance and adherence to principles of natural justice.

---