(1.) THIS appeal preferred under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is fundamentally misconceived besides being barred by laches and delays. This appeal is directed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (CESTAT) dated 4 -3 -2008 [2008 (232) E.L.T. 335 (Tri. - Bang.)] condoning the delay of 1066 days in preferring an appeal against the order dated 30 -7 -2004 passed by the Commissioner. The order of the Commissioner dated 30 -7 -2004 was served on the respondent -assessee on 8 -8 -2004. Accordingly, an appeal should have been filed on 7 -9 -2004, but was however filed on 11 -10 -2007, thereby involving a delay of 1066 days.
(2.) THE chronology of events leading to the delay may succinctly be set out. On 26 -7 -2004 the assessee approached the Settlement Commissioner (even before final order was passed by the Commissioner on 30 -7 -2004). The Settlement Commissioner admitted the application of the assessee on 31 -5 -2005. Against the order dated 31 -5 -2005, the Revenue filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed in limini. Undaunted the Revenue carried the matter to the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition which also ended in dismissal on 10 -7 -2006. By the order dated 17 -1 -2007 the Settlement Commissioner rejected the assessee's application for settlement. It is not clear from the record as to when the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 17 -1 -2007 rejecting the assessee's application for settlement, was communicated to the assessee. Be that as it may, in the aforesaid circumstances the CESTAT was pleased to exercise its discretion in condoning the delay. In the facts and circumstances and chronology of events set out above, we discern no substantial error or perversity exercised by the learned Tribunal in condoning the delay, warranting appellate interference under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission.