2013 (1) TMI 3 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filling of appeal u/s 35B - delay of 2649 days Appellants submits that they were pursuing a writ petition filed in the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and that the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.6.2011 and further that the present appeals and applications were filed thereafter - Held that - The pendency of the writ petition filed by the appellants who were conscious of the statutory remedy cannot per se constitute a valid ground for condonation of the deliberate delay of over seven years. In favour of revenue

Summary

Issues:
Delay of 2649 days in filing appeals, condonation of delay applications, pursuing alternative remedy in High Court, stay of recovery of dues, blameworthy conduct of appellants, demand of duty on clandestinely cleared products, past experience of filing appeals under Section 35B, grounds for condonation of delay, pendency of writ petition as a ground for condonation.

Analysis:
The case involves appeals against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-III Commissionerate, with a delay of 2649 days in filing the appeals. The appellants sought condonation of the delay, attributing it to pursuing a writ petition in the High Court. The Commissioner's order demanded duty on products clandestinely cleared without payment, following earlier proceedings where duty demands were dropped after appeals. The appellants argued that the delay was due to pursuing alternative remedies, but the Tribunal found their conduct blameworthy for choosing a writ petition over the appellate remedy under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act.

The Tribunal noted that the High Court's judgment on the writ petition did not grant any relief in equity and dismissed it as withdrawn. The appellants' argument that the delay was technical and notional was rejected, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Despite having prior experience of filing successful appeals under Section 35B, the appellants' justification for the delay was deemed insufficient. The Tribunal emphasized that the pendency of the writ petition alone could not justify condonation of such a significant delay without any other valid reason presented by the appellants.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the condonation of delay applications and consequently the appeals as time-barred, along with dismissing the stay applications. The decision was based on the lack of merit in the appellants' arguments and the failure to provide substantial grounds for condonation of the prolonged delay in filing the appeals. The judgment underscores the importance of timely pursuing statutory remedies and the consequences of choosing alternative paths that lead to significant delays in seeking relief under the law.