TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reversed on the commencement of compounded levy scheme introduced vide Notification No. 26/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 25-7-97, as amended under Section 3A. Following an earlier decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. 636-637/CE/CHD/99, dated 26-4-99, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original at Sr. Nos. 1 to 80 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Patiala directing reversal of credit on inputs lying in stock and allowed the appeals. It is the above order, which is being challenged by the Revenue before this Tribunal under different appeals mentioned above. 2.All the above appeals were filed beyond the period provided under sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The above applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents in four point proforma in respect of Order-in-Appeal No. 10-12/CE/CHD-I/2001, dated 9-1-2001 sent to CCU (DZ). (f) 24-4-2001 - Letter from CCU raising a query (received in this office on 27-4-2001). (g) 17-5-2001 - Reply sent to CCU (DZ). (h) 29-5-2001 - CCU (DZ) directed this office to send a report regarding the acceptance of Order-in-Appeal No. 636-637/CE/CHD/99, dated 26-4-99 and 639-718/CE/CHD/99, dated 26-4-99 relied upon in the Order-in-Appeal under reference (received on 6-6-2001). (i) 27-6-2001 - Reply sent to CCU (DZ). (j) 2-8-2001 - CCU (DZ)'s letter was addressed to Commissioner (Appeals) with a copy to this office wherein reasons for not forwarding the comments on the Order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi directed the Commissioner to file an appeal. In view of such direction given by a Senior Officer further steps were taken by the Commissioner to file an appeal. According to the Revenue, the delay caused was due to administrative reason. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani [2002 (143) E.L.T. 249 (S.C.)]. Learned Departmental Representative contended that a lenient view has to be taken in the case of delay caused in filing appeal by Government Departments. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji Others, 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 and G. Ramegowda and Others Basavalingappa v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecisions are taken by officer/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay, intentionally or otherwise, is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitute is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers is public interest. The expression sufficient cause should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach other than technical detention of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condone the delay has to be taken in the light of the facts of each case. We observe that in all the decisions relied on by the respondent where Tribunal declined to condone the delay the facts are similar. 8.The present appeals are filed under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. On going through the provisions of Section 35B, we do not find any provision which empowers the Chief Commissioner to review an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and to direct him to file an appeal before the Tribunal. May be as a direction from a Superior Officer, Commissioner is bound by such direction but we are to observe that in giving such direction the Chief Commissioner is not enjoying any statutory authority under Section 35B. He has not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|