2010 (12) TMI 1037 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 220 days in filing the appeal - appellants had challenged the show cause notice issued in the matter by way of writ petition meanwhile in the adjudication proceedings the order passed appellants withdrew the Writ Petition and filed another writ petition challenging the adjudication orders - appellants have challenged the order by way of an appeal Held that - no party is entitled to have two parallel proceedings in two different forums against the same order passed by the lower authority. If the appellants has chosen to challenge the order by way of writ petition and the same was pending before the Hon ble High Court it was the duty of the appellants and their Advocate to bring the said facts to the notice of the Tribunal on the said date order passed in the said stay applications does not disclose the said facts having been brought to the notice of the Tribunal appellants and the Advocate for the appellants are required to make submissions in that regard

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Validity of payment through Cenvat credit. Entitlement to have two parallel proceedings against the same order. Duty to disclose relevant facts to the Tribunal.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellants sought condonation of a 220-day delay in filing the appeal, citing their challenge of a show cause notice through a writ petition before the High Court. They withdrew the initial writ petition and filed another challenging subsequent adjudication orders. The appellants argued that the delay was due to legal advice and to avoid complexity. However, the Tribunal found no sufficient cause for the delay, emphasizing that the law requires a valid reason for the delay in approaching the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the pendency of writ petitions before the High Court precludes the need for entertaining the appeal.

Validity of Payment Through Cenvat Credit:
The appellants contended that the amount payable under the impugned order had been paid through Cenvat credit, ensuring the Department's interest. The Department, however, argued that the payment through Cenvat credit was not valid as it should have been made through the PLA Account. The Department asserted that no sufficient cause was disclosed for condonation of the delay, emphasizing the necessity of complying with payment procedures under the law.

Entitlement to Parallel Proceedings:
The Tribunal highlighted that no party is entitled to maintain two parallel proceedings against the same order. It clarified that the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under the Central Excise Act, as established by previous Tribunal and Apex Court decisions. The Tribunal underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and avoiding duplicative legal actions to ensure the orderly administration of justice.

Duty to Disclose Relevant Facts:
The Tribunal noted that the appellants had challenged the order through a writ petition before the High Court, a fact not initially brought to the Tribunal's attention during related stay applications. The Tribunal emphasized that parties have a duty to disclose all relevant facts to the Tribunal, especially when engaging in multiple legal proceedings concerning the same matter. Due to the failure to inform the Tribunal of the parallel writ petition, the Tribunal decided to issue notices to the appellants and their Advocate to explain why the previous order should not be recalled.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of condonation of delay, validity of payment methods, entitlement to parallel proceedings, and the duty to disclose relevant facts to the Tribunal. It underscored the importance of following procedural requirements, avoiding duplicative legal actions, and ensuring transparency in legal proceedings to uphold the principles of justice and fairness.