2012 (12) TMI 500 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of Delay of one and a half year - Held that - The cause shown for delay that the Committee of Commissioners took a mistaken view of the law that the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court dismissing the civil appeal did lay down the law and confirmed the legal position settled by the Tribunal in the case of CCE Hyderabad v. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. (2009 (5) TMI 419 - CESTAT BANGALORE) is not sufficient to accept as Committee of Commissioners has accepted the impugned orders of Appellate Commissioner after considering all the aspects of the matter - Application for condonation of delay was dismissed as time-barred - against the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, interpretation of Supreme Court judgment, condonation of delay, finality of orders.

Delay in filing appeals:
The case involved 12 similar applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals originating from a common order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated April 1, 2010. The Department attributed the delay to a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court judgment related to a previous Tribunal decision. The Department decided to file appeals against the impugned order due to a subsequent Tribunal clarification in another case.

Interpretation of Supreme Court judgment:
The Department claimed that the delay was unintentional and resulted from a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court's judgment in civil appeals against the Tribunal decision. The Department's contention was that the dismissal of the civil appeal by the Supreme Court confirmed the legal position established by the Tribunal in the earlier case.

Condonation of delay:
The Department sought condonation of delay based on the mistaken belief that the Supreme Court's dismissal of the civil appeal validated the Tribunal's decision. However, the Tribunal found this reason insufficient to condone the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the Committee of Commissioners had accepted the impugned orders after due consideration, leading to the finality of the orders.

Finality of orders:
The Tribunal held that the acceptance of the impugned orders by the Committee of Commissioners meant that the orders had attained finality. The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument that a subsequent Tribunal judgment questioning the legal effect of the Supreme Court's in limine dismissal could reopen the issue. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applications for condonation of delay and the appeals were also dismissed as time-barred.