9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 241 - AT - Central ExciseAppeal to Tribunal in case of Rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules As regards rejection of rebate claim, Appellant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) - There was a delay of four days in the filing of that appeal Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal as time barred Against the order of Commissioner (A), appellant filed an appeal to Tribunal - remedy available to the appellant is an application to the Central Government under Section 35EE of the Act (revision by Central Government). Accordingly it is urged that the appeal be dismissed as not maintainable Held that - Appellant has not raised any contention in relation to the rebate claim and has only raised grounds for condonation of the aforesaid delay of the appeal preferred to the Commissioner (Appeals) - Refusal by the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the above delay is unjust. The delay is liable to be condoned - Allowed this appeal by way of remand with a request to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a speaking order on the substantive issue after condoning the above delay and giving the party a reasonable opportunity of being personally heard on the said issue.
Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. 2. Interpretation of the provisions related to appeals and revisions under Sections 35B and 35EE of the Act. 3. Whether the impugned order was related to a rebate claim or the delay in filing the appeal. 4. Consideration of legislative intent and the ability to remand the case to the lower authority. Issue 1: Maintainability of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act: The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the rejection of a rebate claim. The Appellate Tribunal examined whether the appeal was maintainable under Section 35B. The Tribunal considered the proviso that bars appeals related to rebates on goods exported outside India. However, it was noted that the impugned order did not deal with the rebate claim but focused on the delay in filing the appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was maintainable as the impugned order was not directly related to a rebate claim on exported goods. Issue 2: Interpretation of the provisions related to appeals and revisions under Sections 35B and 35EE of the Act: The Tribunal analyzed Section 35B, which restricts appeals on rebate claims for goods exported outside India. It also examined Section 35EE, which allows revision by the Central Government for orders falling under the proviso of Section 35B(1). The Tribunal highlighted that the impugned order did not fall under the rebate claim category but dealt with the delay in appeal filing. This distinction was crucial in determining the appropriate forum for appeal or revision. Issue 3: Whether the impugned order was related to a rebate claim or the delay in filing the appeal: The Tribunal clarified that the impugned order focused on the delay in filing the appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's decision, not the rejection of the rebate claim. As the order did not address the substantive issue of the rebate claim's rejection, the Tribunal deemed it appealable under Section 35B(1) as it pertained to the maintainability of the appeal due to the time-bar. Issue 4: Consideration of legislative intent and the ability to remand the case to the lower authority: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of interpreting statutory provisions to ensure justice and avoid rendering parties remediless. It compared the powers of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35C to remand cases with the limitations of the Central Government's revision powers under Section 35EE. The Tribunal concluded that dismissing the appeal would leave the party without recourse, highlighting the need to consider all aspects for a just decision. Consequently, the Tribunal overruled the preliminary objection, allowed the appeal, and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the substantive issue after condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
|
