2008 (9) TMI 602 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Manager dealing with all the excise, customs cases of the Company, had left the Organisation, new Officer was appointed, handing over process took some time, case papers, got mixed up with the other case papers - new officer took some time and took decisions only after going through the record and especially after having knowledge of the records - Held that - There was no intentional delay. Even otherwise, considering the fact that there is delay of 65 days and as case is made out, no reason that the said delay should not be condoned and opportunity should not be given to the petitioner, Appeal is allowed, delay is condoned.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Appeal Against Impugned Order:
The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal against an order dated 29-11-2005 by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Nagpur. The appeal challenged the decision holding the appellant liable to pay Additional Excise Duty (Goods of Special Importance) due to the absence of exemption. The appeal was filed under Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. Application for Condonation of Delay:
Due to a delay of 65 days in filing the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was submitted. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, rejected the application, leading to a writ petition being dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

3. Legal Precedent and Arguments:
The respondent's counsel cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the condonation of delay in appeals. The judgment emphasized the statutory limitations on the time frame for filing appeals and the power of appellate authorities to condone delays. The appellant's submission focused on the interpretation of the Act's provisions, especially Section 35B, and the applicability of the concept of "sufficient cause" from the Limitation Act.

4. Judicial Interpretation and Decision:
The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 35B and distinguished them from Section 35, emphasizing the absence of a strict limitation on condoning delays in Section 35B. The Court concluded that the "sufficient cause" provision from the Limitation Act applies to Section 35B. The Court further noted that the delay was unintentional due to organizational changes and the need for the new officer to familiarize himself with the case, justifying the condonation of the delay.

5. Decision of the Court:
In the interest of justice, the Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal, quashed the previous orders, and condoned the delay. The Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal on its merits. No costs were awarded in this matter.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment regarding the condonation of delay in filing an appeal under the Central Excise Act, 1944, emphasizing the statutory provisions, legal arguments, judicial interpretation, and the final decision of the Court.