High Court dismisses Central Excise Appeal for delay, holds appellant not liable, allows writ petition challenging recovery.

The High Court dismissed the Central Excise Appeal due to delay in filing, held the appellant not liable for the assessee's dues, and allowed the writ petition challenging recovery proceedings, emphasizing the constitutional right to challenge void actions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Liability of the appellant to pay dues of the assessee to Excise Department.
2. Rejection of Central Excise Appeal by Appellate Authority and Tribunal.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition challenging recovery proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability of the appellant to pay dues of the assessee to Excise Department
The appellant's unit was mortgaged to U.P. State Financial Corporation, which later sold it to the appellant. The Excise Department claimed that the appellant, as the successor of the assessee, is liable to pay the dues. The Appellate Authority and Tribunal rejected the appeal due to delay in filing. However, the High Court held that the appellant cannot be held liable for the dues of the assessee, as the recovery of dues cannot be made from the properties of a bona fide purchaser in auction.

Issue 2: Rejection of Central Excise Appeal by Appellate Authority and Tribunal
The Appellate Authority and Tribunal rejected the appeal on the grounds of delay in filing, stating that the Statute does not authorize condoning such delays. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the right to prefer an appeal is statutory and must be exercised within the prescribed time limit. The Court dismissed the Central Excise Appeal, affirming the decision of the lower authorities.

Issue 3: Maintainability of the writ petition challenging recovery proceedings
The Excise Department argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as it challenged recovery proceedings based on the Assessing Officer's order. However, the High Court ruled that the right to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a constitutional right, not a statutory one. The Court clarified that if an action is void ab initio, it can be challenged even after a long period. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing all steps taken for recovering dues from the appellant's assets and properties.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Central Excise Appeal, held the appellant not liable for the assessee's dues, and allowed the writ petition to challenge the recovery proceedings, emphasizing the constitutional right to seek remedy against actions that are void from the beginning.

---