Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 18 June, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2000(115)ELT408(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER
G.N. Srinivasan, Member (Judicial)
1. The instant appeal has been filed against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai II made on 29.4.1999 which was issued on 7.5.1999. It is stated by the appellant that the impugned order was received by it on 17.5.1999. An appeal against the same has been filed on 16.1.2001 but the same ought to have been filed sometime in August, 1999. Why the delay has been there, the assessee seeks to explain the same by stating that subsequently in October 1999 a Board circular has been issued where under in matters of similar nature, the assessee has been giving the benefit. It is the explanation of the assessee that on the basis of such a clarification given by the Board giving the benefit to the assessees, a refund claim has been filed with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. It is therefore pleaded before us that the action taken by the assessee in prosecuting the refund claim as well as filing the appeal belatedly should be treated as the one done in a bona fide manner.
2. Mr V.S. Nankani, learned advocate along with Mr N.C. Thacker, Advocate plead before us that the action taken by the assessee in filing the refund claim is only sequel to the Board's clarification issued in October, 1999. He also pleads that when the assessees were informed that the Law Ministry had given an advice against the assessees, the assessees sought for copies of the Law Ministry's view which the department did not even care to reply. He therefore states that the entire action taken by the assessee in this case is a bona fide one and the delay in filing the appeal in this case should be excused.
3. We have seen that the impugned order has been served on the assessee on 17.5.1999. An appeal against this order ought to have been filed within three months thereafter i.e. on or before 17.8.1999. Even if we accept the statement regarding the existence of the Board's circular, that was issued only in October, 1999, two months after expiry of filing of the appeal. Whatever action the appellant could have taken on the basis of the Board's circular, it ought to have filed the appeal against the impugned order sometime in August 1999. Even after filing of the appeal nothing prevented them from taking a parallel action of filing refund claim for whatever worth it may be. The entire action of the appellant in not filing the appeal within the stipulated time to our mind show that the action of the assessee is not a bona fide one. We take on record the affidavit dated 16.6.2001 filed today. We therefore feel that there is no ground exists for us to condone the delay and dismiss the COD. Therefore the appeal also stands dismissed.