2010 (7) TMI 576 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Waiver of pre-deposit - Appellant was bed ridden and cancer was detected - the delay was sufficiently explained - an applicant does not gain by filing an appeal belatedly - Accordingly the writ petition is allowed by way of remand to Tribunal

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing application for condonation of delay and subsequent dismissal of stay petition and appeal.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a private Limited Company, challenged an order dismissing the application for condonation of delay and subsequently dismissing the stay petition and appeal. The appeal was required to be filed before the Tribunal within 60 days but was filed late due to one of the directors being seriously ill. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay based on a specific paragraph from the application without considering the background of the delay. The petitioner argued that important policy decisions in a company are usually taken by directors, and in this case, one director was ill, and the other was occupied with his treatment. The Tribunal's decision was based on a single paragraph, ignoring other relevant details explaining the delay.

The first question addressed was the maintainability of a writ petition against the Tribunal's order. The court found that since the issue was factual and did not involve a substantial question of law, the writ petition was maintainable. The Tribunal had dismissed the application for condonation of delay based on the contention that one director was not in good health during the relevant period. However, the court noted that the Tribunal had only referred to one paragraph of the application and ignored other crucial paragraphs explaining the situation, such as the serious illness of one director and the efforts of the other director in managing the company during that time. The court held that the delay was sufficiently explained, and the Tribunal's decision was set aside, directing a fresh hearing on the application for condonation of delay.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Tribunal's order, and directed a reevaluation of the application for condonation of delay. The court emphasized the importance of considering all relevant factors leading to the delay in filing the appeal and providing a reasoned order after a fresh hearing. No costs were awarded, and parties were directed to comply with formalities for obtaining a certified copy of the order.