2006 (2) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules on Court Fee payment dispute and appeal delay, emphasizing fee accuracy and timely appeals

HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. (APPEALS), VISAKHAPATNAM

The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants regarding the Court Fee payment discrepancy, holding that the fee paid was sufficient and rejecting the ... Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Payment of prescribed fee for filing an appeal before tribunal - Appellant paid Rs. 1,000/- on each of six appeals - Registry directed to pay further Rs. 27,000/- - Appeals relate to Refunds and not against order of demand of duty and/or penalty - No further payment is required - Commissioner (Appeals) could have condoned marginal delays on sufficient reason pre-deposit waived - Stay granted - Matter remanded back Issues:1. Court fee payment discrepancy.2. Delay in filing appeals and condonation of delay.Analysis:1. Court Fee Payment Discrepancy:The Registry raised an objection regarding the Court Fee paid by the appellants for the appeals filed by them. The appellants paid Rs. 1000/- on each appeal, totaling Rs. 6000/-. The Registry requested a further deposit of Rs. 27,000/- as the balance of the appeal fee. The appellants argued that as per Section 35B(6)(b) of the Act, the Court Fee to be paid should be Rs. 5000/- in certain circumstances. They contended that they fall under Section 35(B)6(a), requiring a Court Fee of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid since there was no demand of duty but a case of refund of duty. The Commissioner had not confirmed the demands but only rejected the appeals on limitation, making the deposit of Court Fee under Section 35B6(b) unnecessary. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, found that the Court Fee paid was sufficient, and the objection raised by the Registry was not valid.2. Delay in Filing Appeals and Condonation of Delay:The Commissioner (A) had dismissed the appeals on the grounds of delay ranging from 2-3 days up to 20 days. The appellants provided sufficient reasons for the delay, attributing it to the Advocate's pre-occupation with various work and personal difficulties. The delay was not due to any negligence on the appellants' part. Citing the judgment in the case of Commissioner, Land Acquisition v. MST Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized that a marginal delay of two days should be condoned. Considering the reasons provided, the Tribunal held that the delay should have been condoned, and the dismissal of the appeals on the grounds of limitation was deemed incorrect. The stay application was allowed by granting a full waiver of pre-deposit, and the matters were remanded to the Commissioner (A) for disposal after granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were taken up for disposal.This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the correct Court Fee payment requirements as per the relevant provisions of the Act and the necessity of justifiably condoning delays in filing appeals, especially when valid reasons are presented.