Delay in appeals by Central Excise Department
Though the above case was a land dispute case of Karnataka, the Supreme Court by way of an example quoted from the CAG's report of 2003 dealing with REVIEW ON HANDLING OF APPEAL CASES IN THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT.
(i) Delay by Panel Counsel
The CEGAT set aside (March 1997) an order issued by CCE in April 1992 confirming demand of Rs.29.13 crore and penalty of Rs.2 crore , against M/s. National Organic Chemicals. India Limited, in Mumbai VI Commissionerate of Central Excise, for invoking Section 11A without adequate evidence of intention to evade duty. This Court on 15 January, 1999 dismissed the appeal filed by the department against the CEGAT order dated 5 March 1997, on account of delay in filing of appeal by seven months . The period of delay included four months taken by the Panel Counsel in drafting the appeal.
(ii) Delay by the Board
In the case of M/s. Time Pharma , involving revenue of Rs.1.83 crore , the Commissionerate of Central Excise Mumbai II (now Mumbai III) received certified copy of the CEGAT's order after 14 days on 4 February 1997 and sent comments to the Board after 23 days as against prescribed period of 10 days. Although the Board decided before 17 April 1997 to go in appeal, the appeal was filed only on 5 June 1998. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was an inordinate delay of about 360 days in filing the appeal without giving any satisfactory explanation. The Commissionerate of Central Excise attributed the delay to the Board.
(iii) Supplementary appeal filed after six years: Mumbai II Commissionerate of Central Excise, filed an appeal in CEGAT on 14 June, 1993 against an order of the Commissioner dated 31 March 1992 regarding irregular availment of SSI exemption and consequent availment of Modvat credit at higher rates by a group of six assessees (M/s. Azo Dye Chem and five others). The appeal was, however, filed in respect of only one assessee whereas the case was against all the six manufacturing units and fourteen others being Directors and Managers of the said units. After six years, on the instructions from Junior Departmental Representative, the supplementary appeals along with application for condonation of delay in filing appeals against the others were filed in CEGAT on 11 October 1999 under section 35 E (4) of the Act. However, CEGAT dismissed these appeals on 21 July, 2000 borrowing a Larger Bench decision dated 12 July, 2000 in the same case where it was held that CEGAT has no power to condone the delay. The main appeal filed in time (14 June 1993) was also dismissed by CEGAT on 21 July, 2000 on the ground that no appeal had been filed against the other noticee. The revenue involved in this case was Rs.1.18 crore .
(iv) Frivolous reasons for condonation
In Hyderabad I Commissionerate of Central Excise, two appeals filed by the department against order of Commissioner (Appeals) on whether certain products manufactured by the assessees (M/ s.Neyland Laboratories Limited and M/s. Aurbindo Pharma Ltd.) are bulk drugs under `Drugs and Cosmetics Act', were dismissed (17 August 2002) by CEGAT as time barred as there was a delay of 48 days in filing the appeals. The reasons put forth by the department that the new Collector of Central Excise needed time to familiarize to the work were not accepted . Failure to file an appeal before CEGAT in time resulted in dismissal of the appeal involving revenue of Rs.81.81 lakh. [The Commissioner got two promotions after that.]
See
The Bulls, Bears and Monkeys salute the New Government
Any Government which does not depend on the Left Support for its survival will have the support of the Stock Market. The BSE received the election results with a 21 gun salute – rather a 2100 point salute – in just two minutes. When the stock markets were climbing dizzy heights due to strong fundamentals of the Nation, the then Finance Minister remarked, “fundamentals don't change by the hour.”
Please see DDT story Bulls, Bears and Monkeys in - 31.10.2007