Court allows appeal delay due to counsel change, dismisses tax appeals on Delhi Metro construction, upholds Tribunal decision.

The court granted condonation of an 82-day delay in refilling the appeal due to a change in standing counsel. The appeals by the Commissioner of Central Excise against the Tribunal's order were dismissed as the court held that the exemption notification applied to pre-fabricated components manufactured for the Delhi Metro construction, considering the interconnected nature of the construction site. The court found no substantial question of law and upheld the Tribunal's decision in favor of the respondent-assessee.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for condonation of delay in refilling the appeal.
2. Appeals by the Commissioner of Central Excise against the order of the Tribunal.
3. Interpretation of Notification No. 1/2011-C.E. (N.T.) regarding exemption from duty of excise.

Issue 1: Application for Condonation of Delay
The application sought condonation of an 82-day delay in refilling the appeal due to a change in standing counsel. The court considered the reasons provided and condoned the delay, disposing of the application.

Issue 2: Appeals by the Commissioner of Central Excise
The appeals were directed against the Tribunal's order dated 4th March, 2011, which relied on Notification No. 1/2011-C.E. (N.T.). The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the respondent-assessee based on this notification.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Notification No. 1/2011-C.E. (N.T.)
The notification exempted certain goods from duty of excise for a specified period, subject to conditions. The respondent-assessee had manufactured pre-fabricated components for the Delhi Metro construction. The appellant argued that the exemption did not apply as the goods were not manufactured at the construction site. However, the court disagreed, noting that the construction site was spread all over Delhi, interconnected, and the casting yard itself constituted the construction site. Therefore, it was held that no substantial question of law arose, and the appeals were dismissed.

This judgment addressed the condonation of delay in refilling the appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise's appeals against the Tribunal's order, and the interpretation of Notification No. 1/2011-C.E. (N.T.) regarding exemption from duty of excise. The court considered the specific facts of the case, including the nature of the construction site and the interconnected construction activities, in determining the applicability of the exemption notification.

---