The duty imposed on the Collector (Appeals) to communicate the order passed by him to the appellant, the adjudicating authority, and the Collector of Central Excise under Section 35-A (S) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Headnote:
Section 35-A - Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - The court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for deciding afresh the question of whether the appeal filed in the Tribunal is within time and if not, whether a ground has been made out for condonation of delay.
Fact of the Case:

The appeal was filed in the Tribunal against the order of the Collector, but the duty to communicate the order passed by the Collector to the appellant, the adjudicating authority, and the Collector of Central Excise was not fulfilled.
Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appeal filed in the Tribunal was within time and if not, whether a ground had been made out for condonation of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision on the question based on Section 35-A (S) would depend on certain facts, and therefore, it is appropriate that the point is considered in the first instance by the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

ORDER

1. This appeal is against the order dated 31-3-1994, passed by the CEGAT rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and consequently dismissing the appeal as time barred. The appeal was filed in the Tribunal on 19-6-1989 against the order of the Collector dated 14-4-1987. The submission of learned Additional Solicitor General is that sub-section (5) of Section 35-A imposes a duty on the Collector (Appeals) to communicate the order passed by him to the appellant, the adjudicating authority and the Collector of Central Excise, but this was not done; and the appeal was filed in the CEGAT on getting information much later in a different manner, after obtaining a certified copy of the order of the Collector The contention is that the question of limitation for filing the appeal before the CEGAT should have been considered on this basis.

2. It appears that the contention based on Section 35-A (S) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, at least in this form was not raised before the Tribunal since it does not find any mention in the Tribunals order. However the point being one of law, the same is permitted to be raised. The decision on the question based on Section 35-A (S) would depend on certain facts and, therefore, it is appropriate that the point is considered in the first instance by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Tribunal for this purpose.

3. For the above reason, we set aside the Tribunals order and remit the matter to the Tribunal for deciding afresh the question whether the appeal filed in the Tribunal is within time and if not, whether a ground has been made out for condonation of delay, if any, in the filing of that appeal with a advertance to the above observations.

4. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 106

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAJ S Verma, S P Kurdukar COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD, APPELLANT VERSUSPIOMA INDUSTRIES AND IMPERIAL SODA FACTORY, RESPONDENT. Civil Appeal No. 6426 of 1995, decided on January 24, 1997.

The duty imposed on the Collector (Appeals) to communicate the order passed by him to the appellant, the adjudicating authority, and the Collector of Central Excise under Section 35-A (S) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J S Verma, S P Kurdukar
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD, APPELLANT
VERSUS
PIOMA INDUSTRIES AND IMPERIAL SODA FACTORY, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 6426 of 1995, decided on January 24, 1997.