9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 625 - AT - Central ExciseCondonation of Delay Appeal rejected on the ground of limitation Supreme court gave direction to rehear the matter in proper forum - Held that - The Hon ble apex court have allowed leave to the appellant to withdraw and approach the Commissioner(Appeals) for redressal and its grievances giving specific direction Relying upon ITC Ltd. Vs. UOI 1990 (8) TMI 173 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - The learned Commissioner(Appeals) have misconstrued the direction given by the Apex court wherein in so many words it has directed him to consider the appeal of the appellant on merits taking notice of the time already spent in pursuing its matter before wrong forum - It is further noteworthy that the Constitution of India gives the special powers to Supreme Court of India to pass any order in the interest of justice under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It is a fit case to condone the delay in preferring the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) in terms of the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court - thus the matter is remanded before the Commissioner(Appeals) - Commissioner (Appeals) shall hear the appellant and decide the issue on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit Appeal allowed by way of remand Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against rejection based on limitation. 2. Interpretation of the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 4. Consideration of diligence in pursuing legal remedies. 5. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Analysis: Issue 1: Appeal against rejection based on limitation The appeal was filed against the rejection of the appellant's claim on the ground of limitation by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant, a manufacturer of parts made from wire mesh, had availed exemption under a specific notification. The timeline of events, including classification, show-cause notice, and subsequent legal actions, were presented. The Commissioner (Appeals) had concluded that the appeal against the High Court order was not pressed and withdrawn by the appellant, leading to the finality of the High Court's decision. The appellant argued for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, citing the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the doctrine of merger. Issue 2: Interpretation of the direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court The appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) misinterpreted the direction from the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the withdrawal of the petition and the right to appeal. The Supreme Court's direction emphasized that the appeal should be considered on its merits without influence from previous observations by the High Court. The appellant sought a fair consideration of their case by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the Supreme Court's directive. Issue 3: Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act The appellant relied on Section 14 of the Limitation Act to support their argument for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. They referenced a Supreme Court ruling in a similar context, highlighting the importance of allowing all relevant points to be raised in the appeal process. The legal provisions were presented to demonstrate the basis for seeking relief under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Issue 4: Consideration of diligence in pursuing legal remedies The Superintendent (AR) argued that the appellants were not diligent in pursuing their remedy before the High Court, citing a relevant legal case. The conditions for invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act were outlined, emphasizing the need for due diligence and good faith in legal proceedings. The policy behind Section 14 was explained to protect litigants against limitations when faced with technical defects in legal proceedings. Issue 5: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal After considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal found it a fit case to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in line with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration on merits without requiring any predeposit. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, disposing of the stay application accordingly. This detailed analysis covers the key legal issues involved in the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore.
|
