2016 (12) TMI 1582 - HC - Central Excise

Appellant's CENVAT credit dispute resolved through timely appeal - legal precedents and rulings crucial

The appellant faced disallowance of CENVAT credit on prepaid explosives and lubricants based on a Supreme Court judgment, which was later overturned by a ... Condonation of delay - no satisfactory reason has been adduced by the appellant - The reason cited for the delay is that while initially there was no scope for appeal by virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.K.Udaipur Udyog, [2002 (8) TMI 162 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], the reversal of the judgment by the Full Bench gave hope to the Appellant to file further appeals - Held that: - The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered on 16.1.2006 and the appeals were filed on 25.11.2006. However, in the facts and circumstances of the matter, we take a lenient view and condone the delay of 25 months and 14 days upon payment of costs of ₹ 5,000/- in each case, to the Tamilnadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Chennai - delay condoned - decided in favor of assessee. Issues:1. Disallowance of CENVAT credit on prepaid explosives and lubricants.2. Delay in filing appeals before the CESTAT and condonation of the same.Issue 1: Disallowance of CENVAT credit on prepaid explosives and lubricants:The appellant faced disallowance of CENVAT credit on prepaid explosives and lubricants used in Mines from October 2001 to May 2002 based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in a specific case. However, a subsequent Full Bench ruling of the Supreme Court overturned the earlier judgment, providing grounds for further appeals. The appellant filed appeals before the CESTAT in December 2006 with a delay of 25 months and 14 days, along with petitions for condonation of delay.Issue 2: Delay in filing appeals and condonation:The delay in filing the appeals was attributed to the initial lack of scope for appeal due to the earlier Supreme Court judgment, which was later reversed by the Full Bench. The CESTAT refused to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeals as time-barred. However, considering the circumstances, the High Court took a lenient view and decided to condone the delay of 25 months and 14 days. The court directed the appellant to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 in each case to the Tamilnadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre within three weeks. Upon payment confirmation, the CESTAT was instructed to adjudicate the matters on their merits. Both appeals were allowed under these conditions, with no additional costs imposed.This judgment highlights the significance of legal precedents, the impact of subsequent rulings on prior decisions, and the process of condonation of delay in filing appeals before the appropriate tribunal. The case underscores the importance of timely legal actions, while also recognizing the need for flexibility in exceptional circumstances to ensure justice and fairness in legal proceedings.