2009 (7) TMI 1133 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals
2. Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) to Condon Delay Beyond Statutory Period
3. Merits of the Case and Alleged Suppression of Production

Summary:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The appellants challenged the order dated 18-12-2008 by the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi, which dismissed their appeals due to delay in filing. The appellants argued that their factory closure and misplacement of documents by their Advocate caused the delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no sufficient cause for the delay and dismissed the appeals.

2. Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) to Condon Delay Beyond Statutory Period:
The respondents contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) could only condone a delay of up to 30 days beyond the prescribed period, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Jamshedpur. The Tribunal noted that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the condonation request without imposing restrictions on the period. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) adhered to the statutory limit, finding no sufficient cause for the delay.

3. Merits of the Case and Alleged Suppression of Production:
The appellants argued that their case had merit and that the duty liability was based solely on balance sheet figures, which should not be the basis for imposing duty. The Tribunal found that the appellants had multiple opportunities to present their case but failed to do so. The Tribunal also noted that the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of misplacement of documents by their Advocate. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not err in dismissing the appeals for lack of sufficient cause for delay.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, dismissing the appeals due to the appellants' failure to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing. The Tribunal emphasized the statutory limits on condoning delays and the appellants' lack of diligence in pursuing their case.