2017 (9) TMI 351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal disposal of the appeal on the basis of the facts contained in the impugned order of the Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and the documents annexed with the appeal as there is no dispute on any factual aspect. The appeal has been preferred under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the CESTAT dated 04.10.2016 by which the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed as barred by limitation after refusing to condone the delay in filing the same. The appellant had preferred appeal under Section 35B of the Act before the CESTAT as the Commissioner of Central Excise denied exemption to it under the notification No.50/2003-CE vide order dated 29.09.2014. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the respective submissions as advanced by the parties the following two substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this court:- (i) Whether the CESTAT is justified in refusing to condone the delay of 493 days in filing the appeal on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to condone the delay of more than 30 days; and (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case where ownership/management of the appellant was in transition and has ultimately changed, the employee dealing with excise matters had left the company without revealing about the impugned order and there was no mala fides or any dilatory tactics attributed to the appellant, the CESTAT is just....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the delay in filing the appeal irrespective of the length of delay. In view of the conjoint reading of Sub-Sections (3) and (5) of Section 35B of the Act it is implicit that the CESTAT does not lack in jurisdiction to condone the delay even of more than 30 days in the filing of the appeal. The question No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the appellant and against the department and it is held that the first ground on which the CESTAT had refused to condone the delay is not tenable in law. Now coming to the second aspect of the matter, it is well settled that Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties but are to compel the parties to take recourse to the legal remedies promptly so that a legal remedy may....