9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing unused is liable to be reversed on the commencement of compounded levy scheme introduced vide Notification No. 26/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 25-7-97, as amended under Section 3A. Following an earlier decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. 636-637/CE/CHD/99, dated 26-4-99, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original at Sr. Nos. 1 to 80 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Patiala directing reversal of credit on inputs lying in stock and allowed the appeals. It is the above order, which is being challenged by the Revenue before this Tribunal under different appeals mentioned above. 2.All the above appeals were filed beyond the period provided under sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was accepted in view of the fact that the similar orders Order-in-Appeal Nos. 636-637/CE/CHD/99, dated 26-4-99 and 639-718/CE/CHD/99, dated 26-4-99 on the same issue had been accepted by the department earlier. (e) 9-4-2001 - Comments in four point proforma in respect of Order-in-Appeal No. 10-12/CE/CHD-I/2001, dated 9-1-2001 sent to CCU (DZ). (f) 24-4-2001 - Letter from CCU raising a query (received in this office on 27-4-2001). (g) 17-5-2001 - Reply sent to CCU (DZ). (h) 29-5-2001 - CCU (DZ) directed this office to send a report regarding the acceptance of Order-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; 8-1-2002 - CCU (DZ) directed this office to file Appeal, (received on 10-1-2002). (q) 21-1-2002 - Review directions from Commissioner, (received on 21-1-2002). (r) 28-1-2002 - Date of filing appeal (21-1-2002 to 28-1-2002 is the time taken for preparation of appeal papers and journey time as it involved preparation of similar type of 100 appeals). It is contended on behalf of the Revenue and it is also evident from the facts given above that the Order-in-Appeal was accepted by the Commissioner concerned and it was found that there is no need to challenge the same before the Tribunal. Subsequently, the Chief Commissioner (DZ), New Delhi directed the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 19-3-2002 [2002 (150) E.L.T. 379 (T)]. 4.It is true that in the decisions relied on by the Revenue, the Supreme Court has taken the view that Court has to take into consideration the nature of the procedure followed in the Government which may lead to delay in filing the appeal. The relevant portion is quoted below : "When the State is an applicant, paying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note making file pushing and passing on the buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand but more difficult to approve, but the State represent collective cause on the community. Decisions are taken by of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the acts or commissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it." 7.In Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Limited, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 Supreme Court declined to condone the delay of 51 days. So also in CCE, Ahmedabad v. Corner Stone Brands Ltd., [1999 (113) E.L.T. 379 (S.C.) = 1999 (85) ECR 840], the Supreme Court refused to condone the delay of 650 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue. The ratio of these decisions would go to show that the decision to condone the delay has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
