2011 (12) TMI 457 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Whether the decision of Tribunal to deny condonation of 80 days delay is sustainable or not - Held that - Tribunal has erred in not condoning the delay as there are sufficient and reasonable grounds put-forth for the delay, which was sought to be challenged. It appears that the order, which was received by the office of the appellant at Mumbai office, was transmitted to Delhi office and the same has been sent back to the Mumbai office. The reasons for delay while transmitting the orders to the different offices as has been well explained, even if these aspects were not highlighted and instead case on merit was insisted, we are of the opinion that the delay ought to have been considered by the Tribunal in wake of sufficiency of reasons. Moreover, when procedural law is pitted against the substantive rights, tilt is always towards substantive grounds and liberal approach in such circumstances is required to be resorted to. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal's decision to deny condonation of 80 days delay is sustainable.
2. Whether the Tribunal erred in not exercising powers vested under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant challenged the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 22-2-2010, questioning the denial of condonation for an 80-day delay. The Tribunal believed the reasons for delay were not justifiable and that some grounds mentioned were not emphasized by the appellant's advocate during the hearing. However, upon review, the High Court found that there were valid and reasonable grounds for the delay. The delay in transmitting the order from Mumbai to Delhi and back was explained adequately. The Court emphasized that when procedural law conflicts with substantive rights, a liberal approach favoring substantive rights is necessary. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and providing consequential relief.

Issue 2:
The second issue raised was whether the Tribunal failed to exercise powers under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The High Court did not delve deeply into this issue in the provided summary, focusing primarily on the condonation of delay. Therefore, the judgment does not provide detailed analysis regarding whether the Tribunal indeed neglected to exercise the powers vested under the mentioned section. It appears that the primary concern and decision in this case revolved around the condonation of delay rather than the exercise of powers under Section 35B.

In conclusion, the High Court of Gujarat allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of considering reasonable grounds for delay and adopting a liberal approach when procedural law conflicts with substantive rights. The judgment primarily focused on the condonation of delay issue, providing a detailed analysis of the Tribunal's decision and the High Court's rationale for overturning it.