2002 (1) TMI 879 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal against Order-in-Original. Condonation of delay. Validity of Review Order and corrigendum. Interpretation of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal received an application from the Revenue seeking condonation of a 9-day delay in filing an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 27/99 dated 8-2-99. The Revenue argued that there was no delay in filing the appeal as a Review Order was issued within one year from the date of the impugned Order. The Review Order was sent to the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, and subsequently amended to correct the Commissioner's designation. The appeal was filed within the period specified under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, according to the Revenue.

On the other hand, the Respondent contended that there was a delay in filing the appeal as per the provisions of Section 35E(3) and 35E(4) of the Act. They cited a Tribunal decision stating that delays beyond the 3-month period allowed by Section 35E(4) cannot be condoned. The Respondent also argued that the Review Order was amended beyond the one-year limit from the date of the impugned Order, making it invalid under the law, referencing another Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal examined the submissions and the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act. Section 35E empowers the Board to review decisions and orders made by the Adjudicating Authority. The Board issued a Review Order within the specified time limit, directing the Commissioner to apply to the Appellate Tribunal for a correct determination of specified points. A corrigendum was later issued to correct the Commissioner's designation in the Review Order.

The Tribunal rejected the argument that the corrigendum constituted a new Review Order, stating that the Board had reviewed the Adjudication Order within the statutory time limit. They referenced a previous case to support their interpretation. The Tribunal found that the application for condonation of delay was unnecessary as the appeal was filed within the 3-month period specified in Section 35E(4). Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The matters were scheduled for regular hearing on a specified date.