2016 (10) TMI 339 - AT - Central Excise

Dismissal of Appeal Emphasizes Importance of Timely Remedies

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, in a judgment by Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. C.J. Mathew, dismissed an appeal due to a 17-year delay in filing caused ... Condonation of delay of 17 years for filing appeal before Tribunal - recovery proceedings in progress - approach to Settlement Commission - provision in the statute which permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal and go before the Settlement Commission - having invoked jurisdiction of another fora, whether the delay in filing appeal before Tribunal can be condoned? - Held that: - Action of appellant in withdrawal of an appeal after disposal of stay petition, would amount to seeking remedies elsewhere i.e. before Settlement Commission. This action of appellant indicates he has preferred to invoke jurisdiction of another fora, hence no case is made out for condonation of delay. Further, having invoked jurisdiction of Settlement Commission and obtained an order which is affirmed by Hon’ble High Court, which has become final, now cannot plead for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. Appellant should have followed up the issue with the Central Excise Officer - delay cannot be condoned - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Stay from the recovery proceedings.Condonation of Delay:The appellant sought condonation of a 17-year delay in filing an appeal due to recovery proceedings initiated by the Revenue. The appellant had previously withdrawn an appeal to approach the Settlement Commission, which issued an order upheld by the High Court. The Tribunal found that the appellant's actions indicated a preference for seeking remedies elsewhere, thus dismissing the application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant should have pursued the matter with the Central Excise Officer instead of delaying the appeal filing. The application for condonation of delay was therefore dismissed.Stay from Recovery Proceedings:The application for stay from the recovery proceedings was also disposed of along with the decision on the delay condonation. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for condonation of delay led to the dismissal of the appeal as well. The Tribunal highlighted the appellant's failure to follow up with the Central Excise Officer and the finality of the Settlement Commission's order affirmed by the High Court, which precluded the appellant from pleading for delay condonation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, delivered by Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. C.J. Mathew, addressed the issues of delay condonation in filing an appeal and a stay from recovery proceedings. The Tribunal found that the appellant's actions indicated a preference for seeking remedies elsewhere by approaching the Settlement Commission and obtaining an order upheld by the High Court. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing the appellant's failure to pursue the matter with the Central Excise Officer. The dismissal of the delay condonation application led to the overall dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal's decision underscored the importance of following proper procedures and exhausting available remedies before seeking relief through appellate channels.