2018 (9) TMI 815 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Dismissal Due to 16-Year Delay in Filing Appeals

Rishabh Polymers Pvt Ltd, Mukesh Kumar Jain Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, and Service Tax Hyderabad

The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of appeals by the 1st Appellate Authority due to a significant delay of 16 years in filing the appeals. The delay was ... Rectification of mistake - appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay - power of appellate authority to condone delay beyond 30 days after the expiry of statutory period of 60 days in filing the appeals. Held that:- The claim of the learned counsel that they were engaged in legal proceedings before Higher Authorities had an effect of not filing the appeal before the 1st Appellate authority in time seems to be on a very slippery wicket. The reasoning taken before the 1st Appellate Authority that they had approached the Supreme Court against the dismissal of the application under KVSS hence were under bonafide belief that having deposited an amount directed by the High Court, they were covered by the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 is also a feeble ground for the simple reason that on receipt of order-in-original, they should have preferred an appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority as per the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act 1944 which mandates statutory period for filing an appeal with the 1st Appellate Authority within 60 days and further 30 days by seeking application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority, and the litigation entered by them is not directed against adjudication order. The principles laid down u/s 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 will apply - The appellant herein did not approach the appellate against an order u/s 35 of the Central Excise Act 1944, and there being no challenge against the order-in-original before appropriate forum in time, the first appellate authority was correct in dismissing the appeal as hit by limitation. There is no error apparent on the face of the record in the Final Order dated 19/07/2017 - ROM Application dismissed. Issues:Delay in filing appeals before the 1st Appellate Authority, Application for rectification of mistake, Interpretation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, Applicability of legal precedents, Dismissal of appeals by Tribunal.Analysis:1. Delay in filing appeals before the 1st Appellate Authority:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals due to a significant delay of 16 years in filing appeals before the 1st Appellate Authority. The applicants claimed the delay was due to legal proceedings before the High Court challenging the rejection of their application under the KVSS Scheme. However, the Tribunal held that the delay was not justifiable as the legal proceedings were not against the original order but the rejection of the application under a different scheme.2. Application for rectification of mistake:The applicants sought rectification of the Tribunal's Final Order, arguing that the delay in filing the appeal should be ignored based on Section 14 of the Limitation Act. They relied on legal precedents and the judgment of the Apex Court in M.P. Steel Corporation case. However, the Tribunal found that the circumstances of the present case did not align with the principles laid down in the cited cases, as the delay was not due to confusion or lack of clarity regarding the appropriate forum for appeal.3. Interpretation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act:The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act based on the arguments presented by both parties. It was emphasized that the provision aims to exclude the time spent on abortive legal proceedings if pursued in good faith. However, in this case, the Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the appeal was not justified under Section 14, as the applicants failed to take timely action following the receipt of the original order.4. Applicability of legal precedents:The Tribunal considered various legal precedents cited by the applicants, including cases like Roots Multiclean Ltd, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, and others. While acknowledging the importance of legal precedents in interpreting the law, the Tribunal found that the specific circumstances of the present case did not align with the principles established in the cited cases, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.5. Dismissal of appeals by Tribunal:After a thorough analysis of the arguments presented by both sides and a review of the case history, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeals by the 1st Appellate Authority. The Tribunal found no error apparent on the face of the record in the Final Order dated 19/07/2017 and subsequently dismissed the applications seeking rectification of the mistake.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment emphasized the importance of timely filing appeals and the need to adhere to statutory provisions despite engaging in legal proceedings. The decision highlighted the specific circumstances of the case and the lack of justification for the delay in filing appeals, leading to the dismissal of the applications.