Supplementary appeal and condonation of delay failed where the original departmental appeal did not cover all noticees.

Delayed departmental appeals could not be treated as supplementary appeals where the original appeal was confined to one noticee and did not cover the directors later sought to be impleaded. Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act and Rule 6A of the CEGAT Procedure Rules did not help the Revenue because the earlier filing was not a composite appeal against all noticees. In the absence of sufficient cause for the inordinate delay, condonation was refused and the later appeals were held time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delayed appeals could be treated as supplementary appeals or otherwise entertained by condoning delay.

Analysis: The appeals were filed long after the original departmental appeal, but the original appeal had been filed only against one party and did not include the directors sought to be impleaded in the later appeals. Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 were invoked to contend that one appeal could suffice in respect of a common order, but the Tribunal held that those provisions did not assist the Revenue on the facts. The earlier appeal was not a composite appeal covering all noticees, and the later appeals could not be treated as mere supplementary appeals. In the absence of sufficient cause for the inordinate delay, the request for condonation was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The appeals were not maintainable as supplementary appeals, the delay was not condoned, and the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.

---