2014 (7) TMI 64 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Held that - There is a delay of 277 days admittedly that impugned order was received by the Chowkidar but he did not inform the management and the unit was closed - as per the provisions of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act the Tribunal can condone the delay on showing the sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the normal period of limitation. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma reported in 2008 (8) SCC 321 held that the words sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words sufficient cause in Section 5 of Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant - delay condoned subject to cost of Rs. 1 lakh.

Summary

Issues involved: Delay in filing appeals, condonation of delay, intention of the applicant, legal provisions under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, precedent cases, sufficient cause for delay, deposit of cost.

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing appeals: The applicants filed applications to condone the delay of 277 days in filing the appeals. The impugned order was received by the Chowkidar but was not brought to the notice of the management as the unit was closed. The applicants claimed there was no intention to cause delay.

2. Condonation of delay: The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, which allow for condonation of delay upon showing sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the normal period of limitation. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was emphasized that the words "sufficient cause" should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

3. Intention of the applicant: The applicants argued that they were unaware of the impugned order due to the negligence of the Excise Officer who failed to inform the management. They cited a Tribunal decision where delay was condoned in similar circumstances.

4. Legal provisions and precedent cases: The Tribunal considered the legal provisions and precedent cases related to condonation of delay. The Revenue relied on a Supreme Court decision where delay was not condoned, but the Tribunal distinguished the present case based on the circumstances.

5. Deposit of cost: Considering the substantial amount involved in the impugned order, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 1 Lakh as cost with the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks. The condonation of delay applications were allowed subject to this deposit, and the stay applications were scheduled for a later date.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of delay in filing appeals, the intention of the applicant, legal provisions, precedent cases, and the requirement for depositing cost as directed by the Tribunal.