2012 (11) TMI 29 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal for Waiver of Pre-Deposit Dismissed Due to Time-Barred Filing

M/s. Nagarjuna Agrichem Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals) Visakhapatnam.

M/s. Nagarjuna Agrichem Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals) Visakhapatnam. - TMI Issues: Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery regarding interest on duty demanded; Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred.Analysis:1. The application sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning interest on duty demanded. Despite no representation for the appellants, the appeal was disposed of finally after dispensing with pre-deposit. The impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, as it was filed far beyond the condonable period of delay of 30 days prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground of delay.2. It is established law that an appellate Commissioner lacks the power to condone any delay beyond the condonable period prescribed in the relevant statute. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Singh Enterprises vs. CCE: 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.), it was held that an order dismissing an appeal due to exceeding the condonable delay period is not subject to interference by the Tribunal or High Court. The Delhi High Court had also ruled similarly in Raja Mechanical Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2002 (144) E.L.T. 36 (Del.). Following these precedents, the appeal and stay application were rejected.This judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals and the limitations on the power of appellate authorities to condone delays beyond the prescribed period. The decision underscores the significance of procedural compliance in matters of excise duty appeals, ensuring timely and efficient resolution of disputes within the legal framework.