2012 (9) TMI 867 - AT - Central Excise

Condotionation of delay - Held that - The expression sufficient cause stands interpreted by various decisions of the judicial as also quasi judicial forums. The same has to be understood and applied for a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts in each case. I am aware that the said expression sufficient cause is required to be interpreted in such a manner so as to advance substantial justice. At the same time liberal attitude is not to be adopted in case where the delays are deliberate acts, want of bona fide or negligence on the part of the appellant. A law of limitation cannot be held redundant, by allowing the concessions, without appreciating the reasons for such delays. The appellants reason itself shows that the proprietor was advised rest for the period of 15 days. There is no explanation forthcoming on record as to why even after the said period of 15 days was over, the appeal could not be filed within a reasonable period and it took a period of further six months for the appellant to file the appeal. I find no justifiable reason to condone the delay - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, interpretation of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay.

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing appeal: The judgment addresses a delay of 183 days in filing the appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order was received by the appellant on 25-10-2011, and the limitation for filing the appeal expired on or around 27th Jan. 2012. However, the appeal was filed on 25th July 2012, significantly beyond the prescribed time limit.

2. Interpretation of "sufficient cause": The advocate for the appellant presented a medical certificate indicating that the proprietor of the appellant firm was suffering from a severe disc problem and was advised a 15-day rest period. The certificate was dated 13th Jan., just eight or nine days before the limitation period expired. The judgment emphasizes that the term "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay must be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, and liberal manner, depending on the facts of each case to advance substantial justice.

3. Judicial interpretation of "sufficient cause": The judgment highlights that the concept of "sufficient cause" has been interpreted by various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. It must be interpreted in a manner that advances substantial justice while considering the reasons for delays. The judgment emphasizes that a liberal attitude should not be adopted in cases of deliberate delays, lack of bona fide intention, or negligence on the part of the appellant. The law of limitation cannot be rendered redundant by granting concessions without valid reasons for the delays.

4. Decision on condonation of delay: The judgment concludes that there was no justifiable reason to condone the delay of 183 days in filing the appeal. Despite the medical certificate indicating a 15-day rest period for the appellant's proprietor, the delay of an additional six months in filing the appeal was not adequately explained. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is rejected, leading to the rejection of the stay petition and appeal as being barred by limitation.

In summary, the judgment meticulously analyzes the delay in filing the appeal, the interpretation of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay, and emphasizes the importance of justifiable reasons for delays in legal proceedings to ensure the efficacy of the law of limitation.