TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e laid down by the Hon Apex Court to condone such long delay against express provisions made in the statute – Following CCE Vs. L.P. Shenoy [2003 (2) TMI 138 - CEGAT, BANGALORE] - The case of appeals against parties not connected (other than through the SCN) is on a much weaker footing - the applications for condoning of delay rejected - Thus, the 26 applications which are now treated as appeals in view of the amendments made in section 35E of Central Excise Act, also get rejected – Decided against the revenue. - E/103/2012-E/128/2012 - FINAL ORDER No.40389-40414/2013 - Dated:- 23-9-2013 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S. Shankaravadivelu Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S. Rajagopalan, Special Counsel JUDGEMENT Per Mathew John In this proceeding 26 applications filed by Revenue for condoning delay in filing 26 appeals are being considered together because the appeals and applications involve similar facts. The delay is stated to be more than 6 years in filing these 26 appeals. 2. Arguing for Revenue, the Ld. Special Counsel for Revenue submits that these appeals relate to three matters involving clandestine manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gopal Ojha Issued Bills for selling goods manufactured by IIU 10. Shri. Ranjit Kumar Ojha Issued Bills for selling goods manufactured by IIU 11. Shri. A. Deenadayalan Issued Bills for selling goods manufactured by IIU 12. Shri. P Sundar Issued Bills for selling goods manufactured by IIU 13. Shri. Suresh Narayanan Singh Issued Bills for selling goods manufactured by IIU 14 Shri. Sayed Sirajuddin. Purchased goods from IIU 4.2. On adjudication Duty demand of Rs. 97202/-out of Rs. 2,20,41,065/-demanded in SCN was confirmed. Further a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on IIU under Rule 173 Q and Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on Shri V. K. Bansal partner of IIU under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules 1944. The rest of the proceedings were dropped. 5.1 The SCN issued against Goyal Ispat Udyog demanded excise duty of 1,33,62,476/- was demanded from GIU and penalty was proposed. Further penalties were proposed on 10 other parties as shown in the following table : S. No. Name of party Role of the party 1 Goyal Ispat U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility, Commissioner should have confirmed entire demand along with appropriate penalty /interest. 6.0 Under these circumstances, it appears that the Commissioner ought to have confirmed the entire demand raised in the show cause notice along with appropriate penalty sought to be imposed. 7.0 The Board, therefore, under the provision of Section 35E (1) directs the Commissioner to apply to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for correct determination of the following points arising out of the said order: 1. Whether after taking into consideration of the facts stated above, the order of the Commissioner is legally correct and proper? 2. Whether by an order passed under Section 35C, the Tribunal should modify the order passed by the Commissioner? 3. Tribunal would pass such order as may be deemed fit? The orders passed by CBEC in the case of other two parties are similar and hence not re-produced. 7. Section 35(E) as it stood at the relevant time read as under: Powers of Board or Commissioner of Central Excise to pass certain orders (1) The Board may, of its own motion, call for examine the record of any proceeding in which a Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i. B. G. Grag of ISAP, the two partners of partners of IIU, Shri. Ram Goyal Managing Director of the first noticee, which is presently known Shriram Ispat Pvt. Ltd, the brokers and dealers by filing applications with those parties as respondents. So they filed these 26 appeals during Feb 2012 along with application for condoning of delay in filing these appeals. No such application is seen in respect of Shri. Sayed Sirajuddin who, according to the SCN, bought goods manufactured by M/s Indira Ispat Udyog under cover of invoices issued by dealers who were issuing invoices for such goods. 10. Arguing in support of the applications for condoning delay the Ld. Special Counsel submits that the appeals against the main respondents have been filed in time and what are now being filed are only supplementary appeals. He submits that the delay in filing the appeals happened due to oversight and is not intentional delay. He relies on the decision of South Zonal Bench of Tribunal in appeal Nos. E/151 and 152/2011relating to CCE Vs. Muralilal Santhali and another vide Misc Order Nos. 75-76/12 dated 2012. 11. Opposing the prayer, the Ld. Advocates appearing for the respondents argue that thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hes or delays is that the rights which have accrued to others by reasons of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay. 15. Similar View was expressed in Collector of Central Excise vs Speedway Rubber Co. 1993 (66) ELT 425 Tri Del. Para 7 is reproduced below: 7. Rights accrued to an assessee on account of the Revenue not preceding to file an appeal by accepting the order of Collector (Appeals) cannot later, after a lapse of time, be allowed to be snatched away from the assessee by permitting the Revenue to persue the appeal remedy by condoning the delay especially where there are serious latches and negligence on their part. The condonation of delay has to be exercised with due care and caution and in such a way as not to take away the rights accrued to the assessee or the Revenue as the case may be. In the circumstances of long delays, the cause shown should be sufficient meaning thereby that the party should show that there is no negligence and latches on his part in filing the appeal and in persuing their remedy. The party should show that such delay by condonation will not result in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
