2017 (3) TMI 174 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - composite appeal - time bar - penalty - The appellant has filed composite appeal within the time prescribed by law. There after realising the mistake, appellant, who is the Executive Director of the company has filed a separate appeal which came to be filed with delay of one month beyond the condonable period of delay of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Held that - the appellant has filed the composite appeal within the prescribed time limit, I am of the view that the appellant can be given a chance to contest the case on merits rather than take a technical approach and deny justice to a litigant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against dismissal on the ground of being time-barred.
2. Admissibility of appeal filed beyond the condonable period.
3. Consideration of procedural lapse and ignorance of procedure.
4. Remand of the appeal for hearing along with the main appeal.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD was filed against the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellant, the Executive Director of M/s Rhodium Ferro Alloys (P) Ltd., along with the company, had initially filed a composite appeal within the prescribed time limit. However, realizing the need for a separate appeal regarding the imposition of penalty, the appellant filed a separate appeal after the condonable period of delay of one month. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to this delay.

During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that the initial appeal was filed within time as a procedural lapse, and the subsequent separate appeal was due to ignorance of the procedure rather than willful negligence. On the other hand, the Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order, stating that the delay in filing the appeal was beyond the condonable period.

Upon hearing the submissions, the Member (Judicial) observed that the appellant had indeed filed the composite appeal within the prescribed time limit. Considering the circumstances and the fact that the delay in the separate appeal was due to a procedural mistake, the Member opined that justice should not be denied to the appellant. The decision to allow the appeal by way of remand was made, emphasizing that it should not set a precedent and was based on the peculiar facts of the case. The appeal was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to be heard and considered along with the main appeal, providing the appellant with a chance to contest the case on its merits.