2016 (12) TMI 325 - AT - Central Excise

Commissioner rejects appeal due to filing delay, but allows through remand citing genuine reasons.

BASF India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur-II

The appeal was rejected due to a 17-day delay in filing, citing the need to correct a refund calculation error. The Commissioner (Appeals) has the power ... Condonation of delay - reason for delay not shown - Held that: - I find that Commissioner(Appeals) has power under the statue to condone the delay of 30 days. Since it is refund matter there is no reason for appellant to delay the appeal and reason stated by the appellant for delay also appears to be correct. Appeal could not be dismissed only for the delay in filing appeal as not condoning the delay is as taking away the right of appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances and reason for delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals), I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the appeal a fresh on merit - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues: Appeal rejection on grounds of time bar, condonation of delay, power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay in filing appeal.Analysis:1. Appeal rejection on grounds of time bar: The appellant's appeal was rejected by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) due to a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. The reason cited for the delay was that the appellant needed time to correct the calculation of the refund amount after discovering a quantification error in the Order-in-Original. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the delay should have been condoned as the issue pertained to a refund of duty arising from a settled valuation dispute. The Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R) for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing that the power to condone a delay of 30 days lies with the Commissioner (Appeals) only on sufficient cause and satisfaction with the reason for the delay.2. Condonation of delay: The Member (Judicial) carefully considered the submissions from both sides and noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) indeed has the statutory power to condone a delay of 30 days. In this case, since the matter pertained to a refund, there was no valid reason for the appellant to delay the appeal. However, the reason provided by the appellant for the delay appeared to be genuine and correct. The Member (Judicial) emphasized that dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without condoning it would essentially deprive the appellant of their right to appeal. Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances, and the reason for the delay in filing the appeal, the Member (Judicial) set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.3. Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay in filing appeal: The judgment highlighted that the Commissioner (Appeals) indeed possesses the authority to condone a delay of up to 30 days, provided there are sufficient causes and the Commissioner is satisfied with the reason for the delay. This power is crucial in ensuring that parties are not unjustly deprived of their right to appeal due to procedural delays. The judgment underscored the importance of balancing procedural requirements with the fundamental right to appeal, especially in matters such as refunds where correct calculations are essential.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the significance of procedural rules, the power of appellate authorities to condone delays, and the need to uphold the right to appeal in legal proceedings.