9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 719 - HC - Central ExciseCondonation of delay - Bar of limitation - power of Committee of the Commissioners to review its order - Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in rejecting application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissing appeal of the appellant - Held that - There was no opinion expressed by the Committee on the files. No reasons are stated why the Committee decided to review its previous decision. In fact, the file notings also do not suggest that the earlier decision be reviewed and appeals now be presented. The members of the Committee therefore, at-least from the file notings do not appear to have taken any formal decision that the Committee is of the opinion that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to be challenged. Even otherwise in the facts of the present case, we are clearly of the opinion that it was not open for the Committee to review its decision which was taken long back. In June, 2006, the Committee took a conscious decision not to appeal. For the purpose of these appeals, we are prepared to accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the Committee while doing so did not perform any judicial function and therefore, being merely an administrative action, was open to review without any limitation of res judicata. Even then the question arises whether, such a decision can be reviewed at any time without any reference to the period. The answer has to be clearly in the negative. The Committee which took the decision after due deliberation and examination of facts that in its opinion the decision of the Appellate Commissioner was not required to be challenged, could have on better facts or correct law being brought to its notice, within reasonable time thereafter, recalled its decision and instead directed the authorised officer to file appeal before the Tribunal. However, such liberty cannot be had at any point of time after inordinate delay. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Legality of the Committee of Commissioners' decision to review its previous decision not to appeal. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: 4. The primary legal question presented was whether the Tribunal committed a substantial error of law in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissing the appeal of the appellant. 7. The Tribunal opined that the delay was not properly explained and that the Committee could not review its own decision once it had decided not to challenge the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal also believed that the appeals were filed to deny the assessee the consequent relief of refund. 8. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay should be liberally condoned, especially when substantial justice is at stake. He cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag v. MST. Katji and Bhag Singh v. Major Daljit Singh to support this contention. 9. The respondent's counsel opposed the appeals, arguing that the Committee had taken a conscious decision not to appeal and could not review its own decision. He cited decisions from the Gujarat High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court to support this argument. He also pointed out that there was gross delay in filing the appeal, which was not sufficiently explained. 10. The court permitted the department to produce additional documents to explain the delay. However, the court found no sufficient cause for the delay, which exceeded over two years. 14. The Tribunal was not impressed by the explanation provided by the department and rejected the application for delay condonation. 16. The court found no explanation for the long delay of over two years in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The Committee's decision not to appeal in June 2006 rested for over two years without any further development. 17. The court noted that no formal decision was taken by the Committee to review its previous decision, and no reasons were stated for the review. 18. The court opined that it was not open for the Committee to review its decision after such a long delay. The Committee could have reviewed its decision within a reasonable time but not after an inordinate delay. Legality of the Committee of Commissioners' Decision to Review its Previous Decision:11. The statutory provisions governing departmental appeals were discussed, including Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, which pertains to appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. Sub-section (2) of Section 35B involves the Committee of Commissioners of Central Excise, which decides whether an appeal should be presented before the Tribunal. 12. The court explained that the decision to appeal or not is governed by sub-section (2) of Section 35B to ensure uniformity, consistency, and reduction of unnecessary litigation. 13. The court was prepared to proceed on the basis that the Committee performed administrative functions and was not strictly bound by the principles of res judicata. However, the delay in the application was not satisfactorily explained. 19. The court noted that the Committee's decision not to appeal prevailed for over two years. Even though the decision of the Apex Court in Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. was brought to the Committee's notice in March 2007, the Committee took no further steps for over a year to revisit its previous decision. Conclusion:20. The court concluded that the Tribunal did not commit any error in dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The appeals were therefore dismissed.
|
