TEKSONS LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the captioned appeal and the appellants' application for condonation of delay (COD) have arisen for consideration together pursuant to Bench Order dated 10 -5 -1999.

(2.) THE captioned appeal had been filed before the Tribunal's West Regional Bench (WRB) on 17/19 -11 -1992. A stay application had also been filed along with the appeal. The appeal was against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise dated 31 -3 -1992, which was received by the party on 6 -6 -1992. Though there was a delay in the filing of appeal, no COD application had been filed at that time. The WRB of the Tribunal, however, considered the stay application and granted waiver of pre -deposit and stay of recovery as per its order dated 2 -3 -1993. During the interregnum between the date of filing of the appeal with stay application and the date of passing of the stay order, a question had arisen as to whether appeals (like the captioned one) filed against adjudicatory orders of Additional Collectors of Customs and Central Excise passed before 14 -5 -1992 (the date on which the Finance Act, 1992 came into force) were maintainable before the Tribunal. This question was settled by the WRB as per Misc. Order dated 16 -12 -1992 in a batch of 15 appeals including the instant appeal, whereby the Tribunal held that such appeals were maintainable before the Tribunal. The Bench, further, directed the Registry to post the appeals for hearing in their turn. It is pertinent to note that the said miscellaneous order was passed by the Bench without going into the Question of delay (if any) in the filing of the appeals.

(3.) AS already noted, the present COD application has been filed by the appellants praying for condonation of a delay of 72 days involved in the filing of the appeal. The learned Advocate, Sh. M.A. Rangaswami appearing for the applicants/appellants have elaborately reiterated the grounds stated in the COD application. The facts and circumstances constituting the cause for the delay as submitted by the learned Counsel are as briefly stated below : Before 14 -5 -1992 (the date on which the Finance Act, 1992 came into force), appeals from orders of Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise acting as adjudicating authorities lay to the CEGAT. This position changed with the amendment of the relevant provisions of law as brought about by the Finance Act, 1992 on 14 -5 -1992. Accordingly, from 14 -5 -1992, the Additional Collectors came to be treated as lower in rank than the Collectors for purposes of provisions of appellate remedies under the Customs Act and the Central Excises and Salt Act and, consequently, appeals from orders of Additional Collectors/Additional Commissioners acting as adjudicatory authorities shall lie to Collector/Commissioner (Appeals) w.e.f. 14 -5 -1992. The impugned order was passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise on 31 -3 -1992. But a copy of the said order was received by the party on 6 -6 -1992, i.e. after the coming into force of the Finance Act, 1992. The party bona fide believed that an appeal from such order could be filed before the Collector (Ap -peals) within the statutory period of limitation, and they did accordingly. The Collector (Appeals) passed order dated 14 -10 -1992 stating that the appeal was not maintainable before him and directing the party to file appeal before the Tribunal. The said order of the Collector (Appeals) was received by the party on 16 -10 -1992. Thereafter, the present appeal was filed before the WRB of the Tribunal on 17/19 -11 -1992 as already noted.