2014 (12) TMI 445 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay - Whether the dismissal order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in the miscellaneous petition filed for condoning the delay of 30 days in filing an appeal against the order dated 28-6-2005 passed in Appeal No. 119-2005-TTN(CUS)(ADK)) is correct or not - Held that - there is no inhibition in the concerned section for constituting a fresh Review Committee for taking decision afresh which has already been decided and since the petition in question is only for condoning the delay of 30 days this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the substantial questions of law settled in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are really having substance - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding condonation of delay in filing an appeal.

Analysis:
The case involves a challenge to an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, concerning the condonation of a 30-day delay in filing an appeal. The respondent, engaged in cotton yarn production, was issued a show cause notice for additional excise duty, leading to conflicting decisions by different Review Committees regarding filing an appeal against the Department's claim. The Tribunal dismissed a Miscellaneous Petition to condone the delay based on the initial decision of the Review Committee not to file an appeal.

The substantial questions of law considered in this case were whether the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Review Committee's role and whether a fresh Review Committee could be constituted to decide on filing an appeal after a previous decision. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's dismissal of the delay condonation petition was erroneous as a new Review Committee had validly decided to file an appeal after the initial decision against it.

The Court analyzed the relevant provisions and found no prohibition on constituting a new Review Committee to reconsider a matter previously decided. It held that since the petition sought only to condone a 30-day delay and there was no legal impediment to forming a new Review Committee, the Tribunal's reasoning for dismissal was untenable. Consequently, the Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and granted the delay condonation petition.

In conclusion, the Court found merit in the substantial questions of law raised, emphasizing the absence of legal restrictions on convening a fresh Review Committee. The decision to set aside the Tribunal's order and allow the delay condonation petition was based on the Court's interpretation of the relevant legal provisions and the specific circumstances of the case.