Appeal Dismissed Due to Procedural Error, Delays Condoned

The applications for condonation of delay in re-filing and filing the appeal were allowed, and the delays were condoned. The appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act was dismissed due to a procedural error highlighted during the hearing, similar to a previously dismissed appeal. The judgment focused on these issues and aligned with the decision in the earlier case.

---

---

Issues: Condonation of Delay in Re-filing the Appeal, Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal, Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994

Condonation of Delay in Re-filing the Appeal:
An application was filed seeking condonation of a 270-day delay in re-filing the appeal. The application was allowed based on the reasons provided, and the delay was condoned.

Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
Another application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 270-day delay in filing the appeal. Similar to the previous application, this one was also allowed, and the delay was condoned.

Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994:
The main case involved the respondent, who was the Director of a company proceeded against for clandestine removal of goods. The Customs Excise @ Service Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent. The revenue then filed the present appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, assailing the Tribunal's order. During the hearing, it was noted that a connected appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on the grounds that it should have been filed before the Supreme Court under Section 35 L of the Act. Consequently, the present appeal was dismissed in the same terms as the previously dismissed appeal.

This judgment primarily dealt with the condonation of delays in re-filing and filing the appeal, as well as the dismissal of the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act due to a procedural error highlighted during the hearing. The decision was based on the conceded position regarding the dismissed appeal and was in line with the previous judgment.

---