2014 (2) TMI 282 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - Bar of limitation - Held that - If the aggrieved person prefers to file the appeal through courier, the courier does not become the agent of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is only the agent of the aggrieved person, i.e. the appellant. The delay caused in delivering the memo of appeal to the appellate authority would be attributed to the appellant and by no stretch of imagination, the date of handing over documents to the courier would be treated to be the date of delivery of the appeal to the appellate authority - Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly declined to entertain the appeal on the ground that he has no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days and the Tribunal has rightly held that the appeal is not maintainable - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal as not maintainable due to delay in filing.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing various products, was served an order confirming a demand, interest, and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite receiving the order on 15-6-2010, the appellant failed to file an appeal within the prescribed 60-day period. The appeal was eventually filed on 23-9-2010, well after the stipulated timeline. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the grounds of exceeding the permissible delay condonation period of 30 days as provided in the Act.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Tribunal, which also ruled the appeal as not maintainable due to the delay exceeding the specified period. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a courier delay in delivering the appeal memo sent on 11-9-2010. The counsel relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court to support the argument that dispatch under Certificate of Posting within the stipulated period should be considered as received on time by the appellate authority.

However, the High Court, while acknowledging the argument, disagreed with the interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The High Court emphasized that under Section 35 of the Act, the appellant is responsible for ensuring timely delivery of the appeal to the appellate authority. The Court clarified that the courier acts as the appellant's agent, not the Commissioner (Appeals)'s agent. Therefore, any delay in delivering the appeal to the appellate authority is attributable to the appellant, and the date of handing over documents to the courier cannot be equated with the date of appeal delivery to the authority.

Consequently, the High Court upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to reject the appeal due to the delay exceeding the permissible limit of 30 days for condonation. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's ruling that the appeal was not maintainable. As a result of the detailed analysis and considerations, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower authorities' decisions based on the statutory provisions and legal principles governing the timeline for filing appeals under the Central Excise Act, 1944.