2013 (9) TMI 1030 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The challenge to the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Dibrugarh, acting as appellate authority under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to deal with issues arising out of Finance Act, 1994.

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
The petitioner's appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation due to a delay of 22 days, which the appellate authority declined to condone. The petitioner's counsel argued that the delay was due to the sudden illness of the advocate's father, who was supposed to file the appeal. The appellate authority rejected this reason, stating that illness cannot be a ground for condonation as alternative arrangements could have been made.

Judgement:
The High Court held that the approach adopted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not sound in law. The power of condonation of delay is meant to advance substantial justice, and a pragmatic approach should be taken. The Court noted that it may not always be practical to make alternative arrangements at the last minute, as observed by the Commissioner. Since the petitioner had engaged a counsel of its choice and there was no reason to doubt the reason for the delay, it was held that the delay should have been condoned.

Decision:
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed that the appeal of the petitioner be heard on merits in accordance with the law. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the appellate authority for further proceedings on 19th December 2013.