Appeal dismissed due to delay in filing, raising questions on duty demand withdrawal without merit discussion.

The appeal was filed with a significant delay, leading to an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The case involved a Central Excise duty demand on goods bearing another person's brand name. The Tribunal allowed the appeal solely on the point of limitation, questioning the correctness of setting aside the duty demand without discussing the case's merits. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the appellant's acknowledgment that it was not maintainable under Ministry of Finance instructions. The question of law raised in the case was left open for future consideration.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. Central Excise duty demand on goods bearing another person's brand name.
3. Invocation of the extended period of limitation.
4. Liability of the assessee to pay duty, interest, and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1475 days, prompting an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent company was involved in manufacturing excisable goods without proper registration, leading to a demand for duties from 1.7.1999 to 31.3.2003. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a demand of &8377; 62,30,807 along with interest and penalty. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the point of limitation alone, raising questions on the correctness and legality of setting aside the duty demand without discussing the case's merits.

2. The substantial questions of law raised included whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the demand on goods bearing another person's brand name without delving into the case's merits. The issue of invoking the extended period of limitation was also raised, questioning the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal solely on the point of limitation. The liability of the assessee to pay duty, interest, and penalty was a key concern in the case.

3. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel acknowledged that the appeal would not be maintainable due to a monetary limit set by Ministry of Finance instructions issued on 22.8.2019. As the demand amount was below &8377; 1 Crore, the appeal was to be withdrawn for recovery of the amount. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the question of law raised remaining open for future consideration.

4. As a result of the withdrawal of the main appeal, no specific orders were passed on the application seeking condonation of delay. The dismissal of the appeal with liberty granted for the question of law highlighted the impact of monetary limits on the appeal's maintainability, emphasizing adherence to Ministry of Finance directives in such cases.

---