TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Rejects Appeal on Delayed Application Filing</h1> <h3>SUPER PACK Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR</h3> SUPER PACK Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR - 2004 (175) E.L.T. 712 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing an application under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Interpretation of provisions for condonation of delay under Section 35 and Section 35E.3. Applicability of decisions by the CEGAT and the Supreme Court in similar cases.Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing Application under Section 35E(4):The Tribunal's Final Order allowed an appeal by the Revenue, remanding the case to the Collector (Appeals) for decision on merits. The ROM application challenged this decision, arguing that no provision in Section 35E allowed for condonation of delay in filing an application under Section 35E(4). The appellant contended that the order was based on a mistaken understanding that an application under Section 35E(4) is equivalent to an appeal under Section 35 for condonation of delay.Issue 2: Interpretation of Provisions for Condonation of Delay:The appellant cited a decision by the Western Regional Bench of CEGAT, emphasizing that no condonation of delay is permissible for applications filed under Section 129E, drawing parallels between provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act and Section 35E of the Central Excise Act. The argument highlighted the need for a clear legal basis for condoning delays in such applications, pointing out that the Tribunal's decision was based on a mistaken impression regarding the Commissioner's power to condone delay under Section 35E.Issue 3: Applicability of Legal Precedents:The appellant referenced Supreme Court decisions to support the argument that incorrect orders due to failure to consider relevant provisions or retrospective effects are mistakes apparent from the record, which the Tribunal can correct. Comparisons were drawn between the legal positions under Income Tax Law and Central Excise Law, urging the CEGAT to follow the Supreme Court's guidance in rectifying such mistakes. The Tribunal ultimately agreed with the appellant's contentions, holding that in the absence of provisions for condonation of delay in Section 35E, delayed applications cannot be entertained, recalling the Tribunal's Final Order and rejecting the appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur.This judgment delves into the nuanced interpretation of provisions related to condonation of delay under different sections of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the need for a clear legal basis for such actions. The Tribunal's decision to recall the previous order and reject the appeal underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and legal precedents in determining the admissibility of delayed applications. The analysis showcases the application of legal principles and precedents to resolve complex issues surrounding time limits and condonation of delays in the appellate process, ensuring a fair and just outcome based on established legal frameworks.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
