2015 (8) TMI 1404 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 11 months in filing appeal - case of appellant is that the explanation furnished for delay of 11 months in filing the appeal has not been considered at all. The Tribunal has simply proceeded on an assumption of deemed service of the order of the Lower Appellate Authority under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. The deemed presumption is not absolute but is rebuttable - Held that - The law with regard to condonation of delay and what may or may not constitute sufficient cause cannot be put in rigid straitjacket formula. What will constitute sufficient cause will depend upon facts of each case. Duration of delay is also relevant consideration especially when it is not gross and inordinate. The adverse consequences that will follow if an appeal is dismissed on technicalities without going into merits has also to be kept in mind. The notices by the Tribunal are sent by registered posts. Even if notice for hearing of the stay application sent by the Tribunal at the Chhattisgarh address was returned with a postal endorsement as left it may again raise a presumption but which cannot be absolute. It is not uncommon that if for any reason the postman has not been able to deliver a registered letter within the specified days because the premises may have been locked for one reason or the other on the occasion when the postman went there he prefers to make his own endorsement and return it. More recently in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others 2015 (1) TMI 1053 - SUPREME COURT considering the entire conspectus of law based on judicial precedents with regard to condonation of delay and sufficient cause holding that merit adjudication was always to be preferred to a dismissal of the case at the outset on technicalities leaving the dispute festal. The appeal is restored to file - delay condoned - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 based on deemed service of order by Lower Appellate Authority.
- Consideration of change in appellant's address and its impact on deemed service.
- Application of the principle of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay.
- Interpretation of legal precedents on condonation of delay and sufficient cause.
- Setting aside the order dated 24-2-2015 and restoration of the appeal to file.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging an order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the order of the Lower Appellate Authority being served at a different address than the one mentioned before the Tribunal, which was not adequately considered. The appellant emphasized its seriousness in pursuing the appeal and cooperating for an early resolution. On the other hand, the respondent contended that if the order was sent to the address provided by the appellant, the deemed service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act was valid, shifting the obligation to inform about any address change to the appellant.

The Court delved into the law concerning condonation of delay, emphasizing that 'sufficient cause' cannot be rigidly defined and must be determined based on the facts of each case. The duration of delay, the party's diligence, and the potential adverse consequences of dismissing an appeal solely on technical grounds without considering merits were highlighted. The Court noted that the appellant had provided different addresses before the Lower Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, suggesting a lack of prudence in informing about the address change. However, without evidence of deliberate avoidance of service or liability, the Court deemed it unjust to dismiss the appeal based solely on technicalities of limitation without considering the cause shown.

Citing legal precedents, the Court underscored the need for a liberal and justice-oriented approach in condoning delay, prioritizing merit adjudication over technical dismissals. The principles of 'sufficient cause' were elaborated upon, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice, non-pedantic interpretations, and distinguishing between inordinate delays and short durations. The Court ultimately set aside the previous order, restoring the appeal to file and instructing the appellant to appear before the Registrar of the Tribunal to pursue the appeal diligently. Failure to protect rights and interests might lead to further proceedings by the Tribunal, possibly ex parte.

In conclusion, the judgment scrutinized the nuances of condonation of delay, the impact of address changes on service, and the application of the 'sufficient cause' principle in the context of the appeal process. The decision highlighted the importance of balancing procedural requirements with the pursuit of justice and emphasized the need for a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach in such matters.