HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & ; HON'BLE SHRLR.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ ApDeltant Versus Resoondents 1. 2. 3. TaxCaseNo.52of2008 Leopard Guards (India) Through Partner, R.M. Chaudhary, 16/5, Nehru Road, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil & Distr(ct Durg (CG) Union-of India, . 'ThroughtheSeeretary, ' IDepartmentofQustomi&|GentraljExcise(Finanee) ^NewB$|hi.,.-1.^jp',,:i:l?.,''g|:r[R: :,.:,:;,':1:. : :'- Thei|5epjuty^t^trij$§ic^eF, Central! Excise Range l-ll^li.Hai.gistnijluipGF'^' ::;;T;!!i::' ^::; ^ " ~ SupSnnt^d^,|tif ^r|!;|;».'::.-<%,:..i;:';; .•:: ;;Cus|J|i;^(^Nj^|g®i||t|eircle:yff,-^am^ ;lDistjJ|:®ur|i|^©|ig!^ iil ^li;.!';s"£r:i';!.:. ';'^ :^;.^l;ij^h$'ji^:''^': ^^;t^^^f-;:l:^-i ^"^Bi^ai;''.::L'i'- JTax'8as N6.;183siliB§S Versus Respbndeints 1. 2. 3. Lepp&itiGyardstndia®Ltd.^^^ | ThrcM^h Partner^|;.liiflg^haudhary, 16^,^^ Road,Supelsi;BNI^!,1'^Hsil&DisfrtctDurg(eG) 'Unionoflndig, li-i^ • '•s'll'!.:;';: . ::'::1 •:. ; ^Thro!uyiTthe!SeGr6tary,,-^;:.:;:.:,::;: :^^"^. •:.,,„;' Dep^ltnierifc^lSygtoiriyiii^i^l gx^(F|n^c^ .Nev^|K;ii|Bi^gip»%W1J:^''"'^#!^^ Thes|itRuty^<Nl^ssiif^^ntral E^ -ll,Bhitai,DistriGt|DurgffSG) Superintendent, Gustom &Central Excise, Circle- 1, Jamul, Bhilai, DistrictDurg.CG. Present j Mr. Satyendra Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Mr Bhishma Kinger, counsel Tor the respondents. ORAL ORDER (28thApril,2010) PerDhirendra Mishra, J Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common order as the issue involved in these appeals is similar. The appellant has preferred these appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity "the Act") read with Section 83 of ths Finance Act against the order dated 30th June, 2008 passed by the Customs, Excise & Sen/ice Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in tlilil ¥.'"~ ^itort^n^una|^,^9 by;tft^g|j|Mjna)3|ii|||ljs^l|j§|d|i^jg^^ Jgainst',^ve^dewawjl^'wyffsvrav^fff^^^f^^J^e^Si^^ a(|pRcati<j)reforG(|nyonati6n%yelay9f^||60^a^ i: •':1^:'^::.,'-.;1^^ •,:'l']j;;1 '•^i^^':'i^^^ 1 f Tl| appell&nt has als^filed appltcatiQn^'l^ Nos.03Tbr|amendihg the ! ^eri^biot AppealS for ihcorp|)i^ng ^l:^ i^)j^cfieat|JQnoftheappeals. Tt|isappli^c^sare al|ow^aHcffh$|a^||jHanfei^ 1 K itirii e |Sub^^al:|^c|uestiplisr,^:|lasv:||fij|ipi%:|gi^gt^g|i^ iintie|nicim^nt. :SSS3S 'i'Kffii' igcti: Bifiefly statied, facts or che case ais pirojeGtecl jn the Memo of Appeals, rire that the appellant-Firm issoperating seeurity feervices in Bhilaiarea slnce" 1994. The Firm obtained regjstration cerMcat^lunder ^ctiqaSS of the Finahce j^, 1994 wde Ahnexiire A%. R^sporK^ , tonhe:tuheof'Rs.1,5t,646/-&iisl4,i72iJ|for!t|^|pe^ 30.9.;1999 resRectjyelyyide|^|xure^K^ agjainst the order of Ihe Con^|^nei|<^pR^sJ|b^foret1ft6^^^^TO with a(iplieations fbrcondonation <tf delay of 1460 days in filinfl the appeals. In the aforesaid applications, the appellant stated that he has already paid Rs.47,450/- aGcording to the order passed by the appellate comJTiissioner. However, on consultation with his legal advisor, he discovered new fact o? agreement (Annexure A/5), which was not produced before ti-^' Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore, the same could not be considered by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal rejected the aforesaid reason for delay of 1460 days in filing the appeals and observed that delay in filirtg appeal cannot be condoned on the ground of discovery of new fact. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the agreerront between the appellant and his client was a material document for fastening liability of service tax as the same was in force in the relevant year; the same could not be produced before the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) as the appellant discovered the same subsequently. However, the Tribunal without considering the importance of the document, summarlly rejected the applications for condonation of delay on the ground that the discovery of new fact cannot be a ground for condoning the delay. Rpliance is placed on the decision of |U;ie Supreme Court jn the (iiatters of State o1 Kan'ialakaVs. Y. Moideen ^inhi& othere, reported in i^^:^iSCI^^f.i.::.::,;..:;..,,':':^,,j;i,:,^ / rf ;:?sa'"ilJ;:/ y f'^'i^Sti'..-.. :y^a'f 1.1 %^.«3<>' L thfeappe 1 Oi|i the other hand, ^hri Bhishrtta Kii;iSW, learned counsel for the res?»ndririts, submits that anfappeal urida- SelgU^ri 3S3 (jfthe tet against ^ie orde| | of thei Tribynais c^.^^w^Wn^^^i^thSycsese': inwiws ^ybstar^ quest|6nc^ l^. ^gTl ?subs^||atjq|^^ ISE5 fant in his appfications do not arfee^ for appeate asthQ Tnbunal has dismissed theapplications for|cpndonationofdelay only orithegroundthatdiscoveryOfnewfactrnaynotbeagrouhdforcondoning the delay of 1460 days and the appellant has failed to assign sufficient cause for delay of 1460 days in filirigtheappeals. Thatapart, anyelaim for refurid of duty can be made withinone year from the dateof deposit as per Section ItBoftheAct. We have heard learned counsel|for the parties and have carefully examined the substantial qyestions of law proposed by the appellant. Since the Tribunal has not decided the issue on merits, no substantial question of law, as proposed by the appellant, arises for adjudication of these appeals. In Y. Mojdeen Kunhi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Courtconsideri-o that the question of law was involved in the matter and it also involved 4000 acres ofland, including 3500 acres offorest land, and delay was occasioned on account of connivance of the public ofRcers, condoned the delay of 6500 days in filing the appeal. However, facts of the present case are distinguishable from that of the cited case as in the instant case, the appellant preferred the appeals with applications for condonation of deiay of 1460 days before the Tribunal. In his applications, the appellant stated that the appeals were being filed with a delay of 1460 days as he discovered a new fact in the form of agreement between the appeiiant and his client andthe samewas not considered by the forums below as he could not produce the same for their perusal. No other Eeason tias been assigned bythe appellant forCQndonins the delay. In our ^onsider^d view, the Tribunal rightly held thatiJdfscovery'of' new fact by a party capnot be considered to be a sufficjent cause for condoning the delay 1460 ^lays. We find no substance in these appeals; the saine deserve to |t)e::9nd.sjre,accoFdinalyi;dismissey... ;...:.^i;..i'|^ :Mlls?l!8BII :sd/-r . •' Dh^rendra Mishra Judge ai; w&&/-^-i ^ R.N^eiiandiakar Judge ^\