2000 (5) TMI 364 - AT - Central Excise

Assistant Commissioner authorized to issue multiple orders. Appeal wrongly rejected as time-barred. Condonation due to proceedings. Remand for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Assistant Commissioner had the authority to pass multiple orders in the same case. The lower appellate authority erred in ... Appeal to the Commissioner Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to pass multiple orders in the same case.2. Validity of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal as time-barred.3. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.Analysis:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to pass multiple ordersThe case involved a refund sanction by the Assistant Commissioner, which was later adjusted against outstanding dues. The Assistant Commissioner issued a corrigendum adjusting the refund against the dues due from another party. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner passed another order, which was challenged by the appellants. The lower appellate authority rejected the appeal as time-barred, considering it an appeal against the initial order. The jurisdictional issue arose as to whether the Assistant Commissioner had the authority to pass multiple orders in the same case. The JDR argued that the Assistant Commissioner's subsequent order was without jurisdiction since the matter had already been adjudicated. However, the Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority should have considered the challenge against the initial order and allowed the appeal to proceed on its merits, emphasizing that the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned in the interest of justice.Issue 2: Validity of the order rejecting the appeal as time-barredThe Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as time-barred, viewing it as an appeal against the initial order rather than the subsequent one. The appellants argued that the lower appellate authority erred in not addressing the challenge against the Assistant Commissioner's orders comprehensively. The Tribunal noted that the lower authority should have allowed the appellants to seek condonation of the delay caused by pursuing proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, thereby setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanding the case for a fresh consideration on its merits.Issue 3: Condonation of delay in filing the appealThe Tribunal considered whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to the appellants' pursuit of proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner. It was observed that the delay could be a ground for condonation, and the lower appellate authority should have provided an opportunity for such condonation. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to allow the appeal by way of remand, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to entertain the appeal against the initial order and dispose of it on its merits, while condoning the delay involved in filing the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of allowing the appeal to proceed on its merits, considering the jurisdictional issues, the validity of the time-barred order, and the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.