9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter of the Chief Commissioner dated April 17, 2006 on the sole ground that the connected issue is pending before the Supreme Court and in the High Court of Bombay. The time-limit fixed for filing an appeal is in order to give a finality to the proceedings. If an appeal has not been filed within the time-limit stipulated in the appeal provision, a legal right accrues to the other side on the ground that because of non-filing of the appeal, the order passed in favour of other side would have been accepted by the department and reached its finality. Such accrued legal right cannot be simply brushed aside by filing an application after one year to condone the delay on the ground that similar issue is stated to be pending before the Supreme Court. It is also well-settled and established legal principle of law that in fiscal statute, every assessment year or every clearance is a unit by itself and a separate cause of action. For each cause of action, the parties can seek remedy notwithstanding the decisions rendered on an identical set of facts in the earlier years. Hence, we are of the view that an ultimate decision rendered by the CESTAT cannot be complained of by the appellant, thoug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly the appeal was filed on May 29, 2006. Learned SDR prays for condonation of the delay of the appeal, which is to the extent of 315 days. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the above prayer on the strength of Final Order No. 407 of 2006 dated May 9, 2006 passed by this Bench in Appeal No. S/44/2006 (CCE, Madurai v. Ramalinga Mills Ltd.), wherein the appeal was dismissed as time-barred based on a finding that there was no explanation for delay of the appeal. In the cited case also, the department had pleaded that the decision to file appeal against the impugned order had been taken on the basis of advice of the Chief Commissioner concerned. After considering the submissions, we find that the impugned order was duly accepted by the appellant-Commissioner on June 10, 2005 after completing the process of review. It appears that, after nearly one year, the Commissioner decided to file appeal against the impugned order. This decision taken on May 19, 2006 is in the nature of review of the review already done by the Commissioner on June 10, 2005. The Finance Act, 1994 did not provide for this kind of review. Once the order of the Appellate Commissioner is accepted by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; On the face of the question of law so far formulated, we wonder whether such questions of law arise in this case for resolution by this court as the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as "the CESTAT"), which is impugned in this appeal is nothing but an order made in an application filed for condoning the delay of 350 days in filing an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 8 and 9 of 2005, dated March 28, 2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai non-suiting the appellants for the relief sought for. The reasons stated by the appellant were rejected by the Appellate Tribunal by giving reasons. The reasons are that the order dated March 28, 2005 made in Appeal Nos. 8 and 9 of 2005 was received by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai on April 20, 2005 and the appeal was filed on May 29, 2006. In those circumstances of the cases, the appellant herein filed an application to condone the delay of 350 days. The reason for the delay according to the appellant is stated as follows: Date of receipt of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 8 and 9 of 2005 dated March 28, 2005 April ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ESTAT also found as a matter of fact, that the decision taken by the Appellate Commissioner on May 19, 2006 for accepting the Appellate Commissioner's order was not disturbed and the same has become final in that case. When the Chief Commissioner's order requiring the Commissioner to file an appeal was received by the Commissioner, there was no issue pending for adjudication as it has been already accepted in the order made in Appeal Nos. 8 and 9 of 2005 by the Commissioner and a quietus was given. For the reasonings stated above, the Tribunal non-suited the appellant. Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant, very strenuously contended that there is no provision whatsoever under section 86 of the Finance Act to the effect that the Commissioner has to accept the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and once it is accepted that could not be reviewed for any purpose particularly for the purpose of filing appeal. To impress upon this point, he referred to the provision under section 86 of the Finance Act, which provides for appeal, which reads as follows: "Section 86. Appeals to Appellate Tribunal.--(1) Any assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Appeals on June 10, 2005. Thereupon, the matter has not been precipitated further. That shows a quietus has been given to the issue by accepting the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Thereupon, as found from the reasons stated by the appellant herein in their application for condoning the delay, the matter has been once again reconsidered as per the letter of the Chief Commissioner dated April 17, 2006 on the sole ground that the connected issue is pending before the Supreme Court and in the High Court of Bombay. The time-limit fixed for filing an appeal is in order to give a finality to the proceedings. If an appeal has not been filed within the time-limit stipulated in the appeal provision, a legal right accrues to the other side on the ground that because of non-filing of the appeal, the order passed in favour of other side would have been accepted by the department and reached its finality. Such accrued legal right cannot be simply brushed aside by filing an application after one year to condone the delay on the ground that similar issue is stated to be pending before the Supreme Court. It is also well-settled and established legal principle of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
