Dismissal upheld for late appeal filing; Tax collection legal; Penalty waived, interest limited.

The Court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal as time-barred due to a delay in filing beyond the statutory limit. The Court rejected the argument of tax collection without authority of law under Article 226, finding the tax was authorized by the Central Excise Act. While dismissing the writ petition, the Court granted relief by waiving the penalty and limiting interest payment, considering the circumstances.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
2. Whether the petitioner's appeal should be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to alleged violation of Article 265.
3. Whether the penalty and interest imposed should be waived considering the circumstances.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Dismissal of Appeal as Time-barred:

The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal as time-barred by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Order-in-Original was served on the petitioner on 23rd March 2005, and the appeal was filed on 1st August 2005, resulting in a delay of about 70 days. Under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, an appeal must be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the order, with a possible condonation of delay up to 30 days if sufficient cause is shown. The appeal was filed beyond this 90-day period, and thus, the Commissioner had no power to condone the delay. The Court referenced similar provisions under the Customs Act, 1962, and previous judgments, concluding that the statutory provision restricting the condonation period must be given effect.

2. Article 226 and Alleged Violation of Article 265:

The petitioner argued that the tax was collected without authority of law, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner cited a previous favorable decision on similar allegations to support this claim. However, the Court noted that the tax levied was authorized by the Central Excise Act, 1944, and there was no challenge to the law or the Parliament's competence to enact it. The Court distinguished between the legality of the tax and the correctness of its assessment and recovery. The Court concluded that the earlier favorable decision did not render the prior exercise unconstitutional or illegal, and the mandate of Article 265 was not violated.

3. Waiver of Penalty and Interest:

The petitioner requested the waiver of penalty and interest, arguing that the appeal was dismissed due to a legal issue regarding the Commissioner's power to condone the delay. The Court acknowledged the peculiar circumstances and the interim relief granted earlier. It quashed the penalty, stating that no deliberate or intentional act could be attributed to the petitioner. The Court directed that interest on the duty amount be payable only from the date of the demand until its deposit in compliance with the Court's order dated 18th October 2006, and no interest was payable from the date of deposit until the disposal of the writ petition.

Conclusion:

The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that the appeal was time-barred, and the mandate of Article 265 was not violated. However, the Court provided relief by quashing the penalty and limiting the interest payable, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

---