2008 (8) TMI 613 - AT - Central Excise

Late appeal granted due to administrative error under Finance Act, 1994. Condonation application accepted.

CCE., PANCHKULA Versus AMARNATH AGGARWAL INVESTMENT P. LTD.

The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay application in the case concerning the appeal filed 441 days after the relevant date under Section 86 of the ... Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Limitation - Adjudication order - Review without jurisdiction - Strictures against Chief Commissioner Issues:Condonation of delay in filing appeal to the Tribunal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal to the Tribunal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. The relevant provision, sub-section (3) of Section 86, prescribes a three-month limitation period for filing an appeal. The case in question involved an appeal filed 441 days after the relevant date, leading to the necessity of seeking condonation of delay under sub-section (5) of Section 86. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether there existed sufficient cause for the delay in presenting the appeal within the stipulated period.The impugned order-in-original, favorable to the assessee, was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, necessitating communication to the Central Board of Excise & Customs besides the assessee. The decision-making authority regarding appealing against such orders transitioned from the Board to the Committee of Chief Commissioners/Commissioners post an amendment in the Finance Act, 2007. In this case, the Chief Commissioner's decision to accept the order on 6-2-2007 was communicated to the Commissioner of Central Excise, leading to subsequent steps for review and appeal initiation.The Revenue contended that the Chief Commissioner's decision was not in line with legal precedents and initiated steps for review based on subsequent decisions. The respondent argued that once a decision was made to accept the order-in-original, reviewing it was impermissible, citing legal principles. The Tribunal noted the lack of diligence by the Department in pursuing the matter and deliberated on whether the delay in filing the appeal was deliberate and intentional.The Tribunal found that the Chief Commissioner erred in making a final decision at his level without forwarding his opinion to the Board, which could have disagreed with it. The delay was attributed to this mistake, and condonation was deemed appropriate. The subsequent decision by the Committee of Chief Commissioners was considered the first decision by the competent authority, not a review of the earlier decision lacking legal sanctity. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay application, tagging the appeal with other related cases for further proceedings.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the process of appealing against orders under the Finance Act, emphasizing the need for timely action and proper decision-making procedures to avoid delays and legal complications.