2013 (10) TMI 1195 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay Delay of 146 days Held that - Following M/s Victory Impex V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana and another 2013 (6) TMI 117 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT - The delay occasioned on account of filing of the writ petition to be condoned Decided in favour of Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Setting aside the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant filed a writ petition challenging an order, which was later dismissed with liberty to file an appeal, resulting in a delay of 146 days in filing the appeal. The appellant sought condonation of the delay, arguing that the delay was due to the filing of the writ petition. The respondent contested that the writ petition filing was not a sufficient cause to condone the delay. After hearing both parties, the court found sufficient cause and allowed the application to condone the delay of 146 days in filing the appeal.

Setting Aside CESTAT Order:
The appellant prayed for setting aside an order passed by CESTAT, New Delhi. The appellant's counsel cited a similar case where the impugned order had been modified, and requested the same relief for the appellant. Despite the respondent's attempt to distinguish the order, the court found that the impugned order had already been modified in the cited case. The court referred to the modified order in the cited case, which stated that the appeals filed by the petitioners should be heard on merits irrespective of whether a directed amount is deposited. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and modified the impugned order in line with the order dated 31.05.2012 from the cited case.

This judgment from the Punjab & Haryana High Court involved two main issues: the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and setting aside an order passed by CESTAT. The court allowed the condonation of the delay of 146 days, considering the reasons provided by the appellant. Regarding the CESTAT order, the court found that a similar case had resulted in the modification of the impugned order, leading to the court allowing the appeal and modifying the order in line with the precedent set by the cited case.