2022 (7) TMI 1346 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Sufficient explanation for delay not provided - Transitional CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT - What would not be available to the appellant is the ultimate benefit of both the remedies, but the appellant cannot be restrained from perusing both the remedies. The delay has been satisfactorily explained. The delay condonation application is accordingly, allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal seeking quashing of order dated June 14, 2019 - Condonation of delay application.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed seeking to quash an order dated June 14, 2019, with a delay of about 842 days. An application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal was submitted. The appellant had earlier transitioned the CENVAT credit involved in goods returned by filing GST TRAN-I under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Despite this, a refund of the excise duty on the returned goods was also claimed under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as a precautionary measure. A show cause notice was issued proposing to reject the refund claim since the amount was already availed in TRAN-I, and the refund claim was indeed rejected based on the verification of TRAN-I. An appeal was made to the Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed on June 14, 2019.

The counsel for the appellant argued that the cause of action to file the appeal arose only when a show cause notice was issued on January 16, 2021, proposing to deny the CENVAT Credit availed in TRAN-I. The appeal was filed on January 12, 2022, based on this new development. On the other hand, the authorized representative for the Department opposed the delay condonation application, claiming that the appellant should not be allowed to pursue both remedies simultaneously.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant might not ultimately benefit from both remedies, there was no legal bar to prevent the appellant from pursuing both avenues simultaneously. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the appeal had been satisfactorily explained, and therefore, the delay condonation application was allowed. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court.