AGARWAL POLYPLAST (P) LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting their appeal as time -barred. I have examined the records and heard both sides.

(2.) IT appears from the record that the appellants were aggrieved by two Orders -in -Original dated 29.11.1999 passed by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, who had confirmed certain demands of duty against them and imposed penalties on them. They had received the said orders on 4.2.2000 and preferred appeals against the same to the Commissioner (Appeals) on 5.9.2000 along with applications for condonation of delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the grounds stated in the delay condonation applications and found that appellants had a good case for condonation of delay. However, the lower appellate authority could not allow those applications, as he had no power under the Central Excise Act to condone any delay exceeding three months. Thus the appeal preferred by the party happened to be rejected as time -barred as per two Orders -in -Appeal dated 27.4.2001. Hence the present appeals.

(3.) I have examined the submissions. The cited decision of the Tribunal is one by a 2 -Member Bench, which is to the effect that, where the Act gives power to the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay only to the extent of three months, an order of that authority rejecting an appeal by refusing to condone the delay beyond three months is not open to challenge. The Tribunal has held so by following decisions of the apex Court as well as Larger Benches of the Tribunal. In the case of Mohan Breweries & Distilleries (supra), it was a writ petition filed by the assessee against an order of the Collector (Appeals) rejecting an appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay exceeding the maximum limit of three months prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 for condonation by that appellate authority. The High Court upheld the order of the Collector (Appeals) following certain decisions of the Supreme Court as well as a Full Bench decision of the High Court. The above case law goes totally against the present appellants. No judicial pronouncement to the contrary has been cited before me. I am bound by the cited decision of the High Court and that of the 2 -Member Bench of this Tribunal. I, therefore, reject these appeals after upholding the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).