Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1997 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1997 (6) TMI 194 - AT - Central Excise
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Requirement of show cause notice for assessment under Rule 173F read with Rule 173-I. 3. Bona fide reasons for delay in filing the appeal. 4. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments on condonation of delay. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The primary issue in the judgment was the appellants' request for condonation of a 32-day delay in filing their appeal beyond the permissible period of three months. The Tribunal initially required the appellants to pre-deposit the entire amount due to the lack of a prima facie case on merits. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras had previously directed that the CEGAT should have exempted the petitioner from pre-deposit, highlighting that the validity of the assessment had already been decided favorably in a similar appeal. Despite this, the Tribunal found that the appellants did not establish sufficient cause for the delay, noting that the appellants had waited out the limitation period and did not act with urgency once the period expired. 2. Requirement of Show Cause Notice for Assessment under Rule 173F read with Rule 173-I: The appellants argued that the assessment order was void as it was issued without a show cause notice. However, the Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in CCE v. Seraikella Glass Works, which clarified that no show cause notice was required for demands made under Rule 173F read with Rule 173-I upon finalization of RT 12 Returns. The Tribunal emphasized that even if the order was issued without a show cause notice, it would be considered voidable, not void. 3. Bona Fide Reasons for Delay in Filing the Appeal: The appellants claimed that their delay was due to bona fide reasons, including ongoing discussions with the authorities and a belief that an appeal could not be filed against the RT 12 memorandum. The Tribunal, however, found no evidence of such discussions and noted that the appellants only addressed the issue after the limitation period had expired. The Tribunal did not accept the appellants' plea of bona fide belief and highlighted that there was no urgency shown by the appellants in filing the appeal after the limitation period had expired. 4. Applicability of Supreme Court Judgments on Condonation of Delay: The appellants cited the Supreme Court's decisions in CCE v. Toshiba Anand Batteries and MST Katiji & Others v. Collector Land Acquisition to support their plea for condonation of delay. The Tribunal distinguished these cases, noting that in Toshiba Anand Batteries, the Supreme Court condoned the delay due to finality in a similar issue, which was not applicable in the present case. The Tribunal also referenced Ajit Singh v. CC, where the Supreme Court held that sufficient cause must arise before the expiration of the limitation period. The Tribunal concluded that no sufficient cause was established within the limitation period in the present case. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the appellants did not demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the appeals were also dismissed due to the failure to condone the delay. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the necessity of establishing sufficient cause within the limitation period for condonation of delay.
|