2013 (5) TMI 706 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - delay of 215 days - appeal before CESTAT - appellant claimed that though he did receive the impugned order of the Commissioner on 10-6-2010, he could not take action for filing appeal because of various legal disputes and litigation including the criminal prosecution for the cases of the Excise and Customs Department, which consumed considerable time. It was only when he received a recovery notice dated 22-3-2011 from the local Superintendent of Central Excise, Jetpur, he realized that the appeal was not filed against the order of the Commissioner. Held that - The Courts normally prefer the cause of substantive justice when pitted against technicalities. Ordinarily, therefore, the Courts take reasonably lenient view in examining the delay and causes of delay explained by a litigant on the premise that ordinarily, a litigant would not gain by not pursuing his remedies. In the present case, the delay was not so gross, nor was the conduct of the petitioner so negligent that his appeal should have been dismissed without hearing on merits. We are informed that the revenue involved in the present case is close to ₹ 2 crores. - matter restored before tribunal - delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing appeal due to delay in filing.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal against the Commissioner's order solely based on a delay of 215 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner explained the delay citing legal disputes, criminal prosecution, and receiving a recovery notice as reasons for not filing the appeal promptly. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently, the appeal and stay application.

Upon hearing both parties, the High Court observed that the delay should have been condoned in this case as the petitioner provided a reasonable explanation. The petitioner's explanation of being burdened by various litigations, realizing the omission to file the appeal only upon receiving the recovery notice, and promptly contacting the advocate to file the appeal was considered valid. The Court emphasized that substantive justice should prevail over technicalities, especially when the delay was not significant and the conduct of the petitioner was not negligent.

Given that the revenue involved was substantial, close to Rs. 2 crores, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal and stay application were revived. The Court made it clear that their decision to condone the delay did not imply any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's contentions in the appeal or the stay application. The Tribunal was granted the authority to independently assess all aspects of the case, including the question of pre-deposit.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the petition, making the rule absolute with no order as to costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the circumstances of each case and prioritizing substantive justice over procedural technicalities, ultimately allowing the appeal to proceed despite the initial delay in filing.