TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the Tribunal held that the applicant had failed to show that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation as provided under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal under Section 35B to the Appellate Tribunal is to be filed within three months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is to be communicated to the party preferring the appeal. Sub-section (5) of Section 35B provides that the Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal after the expiry of the three months period if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Thus, it is clear that whether there was sufficient cause or not for condoning the delay in filing the appeal present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.-LB)] reversed its earlier decision on the issue of classification on which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 14-3-2000 was based and came to a decision which would have inured to the benefit of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the Larger Bench was also upheld by the Supreme Court [2002 (142) E.L.T. A172 (S.C.)]. 4. In view of the orders passed by the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal the petitioner was advised to move an appropriate refund application for refund of the duty paid by it pursuant to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 14-3-2000. Such refund application was made on 23-4-2001. The refund claim was rejected on 26-3-2002 holding, inter alia, that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay, the Tribunal will keep in mind the surrounding circumstances in which the Petitioner is placed today. At this stage learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that if the operation of the impugned demand notice is not stayed for some time, the whole purpose of filing the appeal would get defeated. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, while dismissing the Petition as withdrawn, we direct that if the petitioner moves the Tribunal within two weeks from today, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps for recovery of the interest, being demanded from the Petitioner under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, till the Tribunal takes a final decision on Petitioner s application for condonation of delay and/or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the delay in filing the appeal. These are well settled principles. In Shanti Prasad Gupta v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Camp at Meerut and Ors., 1981 (Supp) SCC 73, the Supreme Court held that whether or not there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay, is a question of fact. It further held that when an order is made by a lower Court in exercise of its discretion allowing or refusing an application to extend time, it cannot be interfered with in revision, unless the lower Court has acted with material irregularity or contrary to law or has come to that conclusion on no evidence. The Tribunal has considered all the facts and upon such consideration has come to a conclusion. Unless the conclusions or findings of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
