w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s HBL Power Systems Ltd. v/s The Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad

    COD Application No. 45/2010 Central Excise Appeal No. 451 of 2010

    Decided On, 23 July 2010

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore

    By, HONOURABLE MR. P.G. CHACKO
    By, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) & HONOURABLE MR. P. KARTHIKEYAN
    By, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

    For the Appellant : Shri M.V.S. Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondent : Shri K.S. Chandrasekharan, JDR.



Judgment Text

PER : P.G. CHACKO


This application filed by the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 61 days involved in filing of the appeal. After hearing ld. Counsel for the applicant/appellant and ld. JDR for the Revenue, we have found sufficient cause for condonation of this delay.


2. The appeal is directed against the appellate Commissioner?s order. According to the ld. Counsel, the preamble to the appellate Commissioner?s order did not guide the appellant properly in as much as it laid down not only appellate remedy but also revisional remedy. On the other hand, the ld. JDR submits that the cases in which a revision application to the Government of India could be filed as also other cases in which an appeal could be filed with this Tribunal were distinctly mentioned in the preamble to the impugned order. We have found the submission of the ld. JDR to be correct. Nevertheless, the conduct of the appellant during the interregnum between the appellate Commissioner?s order and the present appeal has to be taken into account. Upon receipt of the impugned order, the appellant chose to file a revision petition with the Government of India within the prescribed time limit. Apparently, this was done on the basis of the appellant?s understanding of para 2 of the preamble to the appellate Commissioner?s order. Later on, the Revisionary authority, having found that the correct remedy against the appellate Commissioner s order was an appeal before the Tribunal returned the papers to the appellant instructing them to file an appeal before this Tribunal if so advised. The present appeal was filed on 11.3.2010. This appeal ought to have been filed on or before 8.1.2010. Hence there is a delay of 61 days.


3. In support of the prayer for condonation of the above delay, ld. Counsel relies on the decision of this Bench in the case of Cairn Energy India Pty. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Visak-II [2008 (221) E.L.T. 440 (Tri. Bang.)], wherein this Bench condoned the delay of an Excise appeal after taking note of the fact that the appellant had lost some time pursuing wrong remedy before another authority. We have heard the ld. JDR also with reference to the case law cited by the ld. Counsel.


4. We find that present appellant is supported by the case law cited by the ld. Counsel. Admittedly, the appellant was mistakenly pursuing the revisionary remedy be

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

fore the Government of India after receiving the appellate Commissioner s order. Upon the papers having been returned by the revisionary authority, they filed an appeal with this Tribunal without unreasonable delay. In these circumstances, we allow the present application.
O R