TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, "the Tribunal"), claiming following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the Tribunal has power to condone the delay under Section 35B(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in case of Departmental Appeal filed after Review Committee decision under Section 35E ibid? ii) Whether the divisional bench of the Tribunal was bound by larger bench decision in the case of CCE Raipur v. Monet Ispat & Energy Limited (2010 257 ELT 339) or it could have taken different view without referring the matter to the larger bench? iii) Whether the divisional bench of the Tribunal was justified in relying ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act for manufacture of finished goods. It imports certain inputs which are exempt from custom duty under notification dated 1.3.2005 as amended subject to following the procedure prescribed under the Customs (Import of goods on concessional rate of duty for the manufacture of Excisable goods) Rules 1996 (in short, "the Rules"). The assessee in accordance with the provisions of these rules applied to the jurisdictional Central Excise authority for registration which was granted to it. The department alleged that the assessee imported certain goods by declaring their false description in the documents and in this manner, wrongly availed duty exemption under notification dated 1.3.2005. It was on this basis that show cause notice dated 22.4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he order in terms of section 35E( 4) of the Act, the Tribunal is competent to condone the delay for sufficient cause under Section 35B(5) of the Act. 5. It may be noticed that Section 35E( 4) of the Act is pari materia to section 129D(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, "the 1962 Act") whereas Section 35B(5) of the Act and Section 129A(5) of the 1962 Act are similar. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Thakker Shipping Pvt. Limited's case (supra) held that Section 129A(5) of 1962 Act stands incorporated in Section 129D(4) of 1962 Act by way of legal fiction and has to be given effect to and in such circumstances, it could not be said that the Tribunal had no power to condone the delay. It was held as under:- &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r else it may be said that provisions relating to appeals to the Tribunal have been made applicable and not the cross objections. The use of expression "so far as may be" is to bring general provisions relating to the appeals to Tribunal into Section 129D( 4). Once the provisions relating to the appeals to the Tribunal have been made applicable, Section 129A( 5) stands incorporated in Section 129D(4) by way of legal fiction and must be given effect to. Seen thus, it becomes clear that the Act has given express power to the Tribunal to condone delay in making the application under Section 129D(4) if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." 6. Further, The Tribunal while rejecting the praye....