2013 (11) TMI 630 - HC - Central Excise

Power to condone delay by the Tribunal u/s 35(E)(i) & (ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Directing the Commissioner to file an application before the Tribunal u/s 35(E) (4) Permission to make up deficiency in affixing court fee Held that - Following Collector of Central Excise v. M.M. Rubber Co. 1991 (9) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay in an order passed by the Committee of Chief Commissioner s, asking the Commissioner to file an appeal - The power to condone delay relates to filing the application - The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by holding that as the order passed by the Committee of Chief Commissioner s is barred by limitation and it has no jurisdiction to condone this delay, the appeal is not maintainable Tribunal rightly declined to entertain the appeal Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deficiency in affixing court fee.
2. Challenge to order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
3. Jurisdiction of Tribunal to condone delay in reviewing authority's order.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of deficiency in affixing court fee, where an application was filed seeking permission to rectify the deficiency. The application was allowed after considering the reasons provided and arguments presented by the appellant's counsel.

2. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, dismissing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal based its decision on the grounds that the order from the Committee of Chief Commissioners, directing the Commissioner to file the appeal, was beyond the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise v. M.M. Rubber Co. to support its decision.

3. The judgment delves into the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to condone delay in the reviewing authority's order. It discusses the statutory provisions of Section 35(E)(i) and (ii) of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that the Tribunal does not have the authority to condone delay in an order issued by the Committee of Chief Commissioners. The judgment aligns with the Supreme Court's ruling in M.M. Rubber Co.'s case, supporting the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal. The judgment concludes that there is no apparent error in the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the issues raised and the application of relevant legal principles in arriving at the decision.