2001 (5) TMI 475 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the appeal:
The appellants filed three appeals challenging Order-in-Original No. 13/90 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The appellants argued that they were pursuing a remedy before the High Court of Kerala, and as they were not parties to the proceedings, they filed a writ petition which was dismissed. The High Court observed that an appeal lies to the Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, and based on this, the appellants filed appeals with the Tribunal. The Revenue contended that the appeals were not maintainable as the appellants were not parties to the notice or the adjudication order. The Revenue highlighted the significant delay in filing the appeals, emphasizing that each day's delay should be accounted for. The Tribunal considered the matter carefully and concluded that the appeals were not maintainable as the appellants failed to provide a valid reason for the delay in filing the appeals.

2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal:
The Tribunal examined two key issues: the maintainability of the appeal and whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeals. It was emphasized that the right of appeal is not inherent and must be specifically provided for by statute. Section 81 of the Act allows for filing an appeal to the Tribunal against decisions or orders by the adjudicating authorities. The Tribunal clarified that being issued summons or treated as a witness in proceedings does not automatically grant the right to file an appeal against an adjudication order. The Tribunal noted that the appellants were aware of the proceedings against them and should have asked the adjudicating authority to adjudicate the matter. The High Court's observation about the existence of an alternative remedy was deemed insufficient without directions to entertain the appeal despite the time-bar. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed all three appeals, ruling them as not maintainable due to the lack of valid reasons for the delay in filing.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the maintainability of the appeals and the failure to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing. The decision highlighted the importance of statutory provisions for the right of appeal and the need for timely action in pursuing legal remedies.