2025 (2) TMI 677 - AT - Central Excise

Cross objections filed in wrong form not time-barred when prayers identical to subsequent appeal

CESTAT NEW DELHI held that cross objections filed in incorrect form by appellant were not time-barred. The tribunal determined that procedural errors in ... Rejection of appeal as being time barred, ignoring the date of filing of the cross objections by the appellant in computing the limitation - whether the date of filing the cross objections (which is not the correct Form) has to be taken into account while considering the issue of limitation, in preferring the appeal before the Commissioner? - HELD THAT:- There is absolutely no difference in the prayers made either in the cross objections or in the appeal filed. Considering the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, the principle laid down is that it is only a procedural error, which can be rectified and does not warrant dismissal of the appeal. Secondly, in such cases, the limitation would relate back to the date when the original memorandum (though not in the correct form) was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The decision of the Single Member in CCE Vs. Nisha Chemicals, Bombay [1986 (4) TMI 172 - CEGAT, BOMBAY] has dealt with the appeal in Form-C.A.-3, which was not the valid form as it was meant for an appeal under Section 129A(1), whereas the appeal was filed under Section 129A(2) and it was observed that the forms are meant for helping the authorities in the disposal of the appeals and the applications and they cannot be interpreted to act as a hindrance to such disposals. In other words, the use of a non-prescribed form will not make the appeal invalid. Apart from the decisions of the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Planet POP Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. AC, Customs [2017 (2) TMI 422 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and the issue considered was whether to treat the representation made by the petitioner seeking withdrawal of the order-in-original as an appeal to assail the order-in-original. In the said case, the appellant was informed vide letter dated 21.04.2016 that an appeal could be preferred before the Commissioner of Customs and, therefore, the appellant preferred the appeal in the appropriate format on 15.12.2016, however, the appeal was dismissed, as being time barred. In the circumstances, the Court considered, whether the party aggrieved by the order-in-original has lodged its grievance before the appropriate forum within the prescribed time limit. The Court considering the representations sent by the petitioner found that they had sought withdrawal of the order i.e. the order-in-original and, therefore, the representation dated 27.04.2016 was within time, though not in the manner prescribed under the Rules. The Court categorically noted that this was more than an error which pertained to the form than the substance of the matter. Conclusion - The cross objections filed by the appellant, though initially incorrect, were within the limitation period, and the rectified form related back to the original filing date. Therefore, the appeal was not time-barred. Matter remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals), to consider the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The appeal is, therefore, allowed by way of remand. The Appellate Tribunal considered the appeal of M/s. Tokai Rubber Auto Parts India Pvt. Ltd. challenging the rejection of their appeal as time-barred due to the incorrect form filed. The core legal question was whether the date of filing cross objections should be considered for the purpose of calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Commissioner. The Tribunal analyzed relevant legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case to reach its decision.The Tribunal noted that the appellant received the order-in-original on 8.2.2019 and filed cross objections on 15.03.2019 instead of filing an appeal in the prescribed form under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Subsequently, they rectified this error by submitting the appeal in the proper form. The Revenue argued that the appeal was time-barred due to the delay caused by the filing of cross objections.The Tribunal examined the memorandums of cross objections and appeal, finding that the grievances and prayers were identical in both. Citing legal principles, the Tribunal emphasized that procedural errors can be rectified and should not lead to the dismissal of the appeal. They referred to previous Tribunal decisions where appeals filed in non-prescribed forms were still considered valid, emphasizing that procedural errors should not impede substantial justice.Additionally, the Tribunal considered a decision of the Madras High Court where a representation seeking withdrawal of an order was treated as an appeal despite not being in the prescribed format. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the cross objections filed by the appellant, though initially incorrect, were within the limitation period, and the rectified form related back to the original filing date. Therefore, the appeal was not time-barred.The Tribunal distinguished a decision cited by the Revenue, emphasizing that the Madras High Court decision was binding and supported the appellant's position. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the appeal was within the limitation period, set aside the previous order, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for consideration on merits in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing that procedural errors should not deprive parties of their substantive right to appeal. The decision was pronounced on 17th February 2025.