Timely commissioner application not time-barred despite registry insistence on separate filings for multiple assessees.

A timely application by the Commissioner under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act was not rendered time-barred merely because the registry later required separate filings for different assessees under Explanation (2) to Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The initial common filing was within limitation, and the later procedural objection did not create a fresh delay for limitation purposes. The condonation application was therefore unnecessary, and the Revenue's limitation position was accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue was required to file separate applications for the two assessees and whether the subsequent applications were barred by delay.

Analysis: The initial application under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was filed within time. The later objection arose only because the registry required separate filings for different assessees under Explanation (2) to Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Since the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise was the appellant and the common application had already been made in time, the insistence on separate applications did not create a delay for limitation purposes.

Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay was not necessary and stood dismissed; the Revenue's position on limitation was accepted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal proceeded without the delay objection, as the initial filing was treated as timely notwithstanding the registry objection regarding separate applications.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a timely application has been filed by the Commissioner, a later insistence on separate filings for multiple assessees does not convert the matter into one barred by limitation.

---