2019 (5) TMI 1223 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant's Delay Appeal Dismissed: Ignorance of Law Not Accepted

Manoj Sankhi (Director-M/s Bhishma Pan Products Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I

Manoj Sankhi (Director-M/s Bhishma Pan Products Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I - TMI Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Requirement of pre-deposit for filing the appeal.3. Legal procedures and available statutory remedies.4. Ignorance of law by the appellant.5. Application of Supreme Court judgments on condonation of delay.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The appeal was filed under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging the order dated 31 March 2017 by the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi. The appeal was filed on 11 March 2019, significantly beyond the three-month period prescribed under Section 35B(3) of the Act. The appellant sought condonation of this delay under Section 35B(5), which allows the Tribunal to admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period if sufficient cause is shown. The delay amounted to 578 days, and the appellant argued that the delay was due to the Company's decision not to pursue the appeal and subsequent steps taken by the Director to file the appeal in an individual capacity.2. Requirement of Pre-deposit for Filing the Appeal:The appellant contended that the requirement of a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty demanded imposed an onerous burden, which was a reason for the delay. This argument was initially presented in a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed, and subsequently before the Supreme Court, which also dismissed the petition but granted liberty to file a statutory appeal within 30 days, subject to the requirement of pre-deposit.3. Legal Procedures and Available Statutory Remedies:The appellant was a party to the writ petitions and special leave petitions filed before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. Both courts dismissed the petitions, emphasizing that the statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Tribunal was available. The Supreme Court specifically allowed the filing of the appeal within 30 days from its decision on 23 January 2018, making it clear that the appeal would be considered on merits only if filed within this period and subject to the pre-deposit requirement.4. Ignorance of Law by the Appellant:The appellant claimed ignorance of the legal procedures, arguing that he was not aware of the necessity to file the appeal within the stipulated period. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant, being a Director of the Company, could not claim ignorance, especially since he was actively involved in the legal proceedings at various stages, including the writ petitions and special leave petitions.5. Application of Supreme Court Judgments on Condonation of Delay:The appellant relied on several Supreme Court judgments, such as Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag, State of Haryana, and Indian Oil Corporation Limited, to argue for a liberal approach in condoning the delay. The Tribunal, however, distinguished these cases, noting that they involved the State and public interest, where a more lenient approach might be justified. In contrast, the present case involved a private party who failed to act within the extended period granted by the Supreme Court.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had not provided a sufficient explanation for the delay from 23 January 2018 to 29 January 2019. The appellant's awareness of the legal proceedings and the Supreme Court's explicit direction to file the appeal within 30 days undermined the claim of sufficient cause. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.