2014 (7) TMI 781 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before tribunal - sufficient cause - Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the death of the daughter of the Director of the appellant Company and that the fact of the concerned employee of the appellant Company left the job during the relevant period is not relevant or admissible reasons for condonation of delay is just and proper - delay of 196 days - Held that - the reasons adduced in the application seeking condonation of delay of 196 days in filing the appeal are proper and sufficient cause has also been made out by the appellant for condoning the delay and therefore, the CESTAT was not right in rejecting the said application. - CESTAT directed to number the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law - decided in favor of assesssee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against CESTAT order - Delay in filing appeal - Condonation of delay - Proper reasons for delay - Discretionary powers of Tribunal under Sec.35B(5) of Central Excise Act - Sufficiency of reasons for condonation of delay - Wilful act or gross negligence - Interest of justice - Denial of justice by refusing to condone delay.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) after a delay of 196 days. The delay was attributed to the Director's daughter's illness and subsequent death, as well as the departure of the person handling legal matters for the company. The CESTAT rejected the application for condonation of delay, prompting the appellant to file the present appeal.

The appellant raised substantial questions of law challenging the CESTAT's decision not to condone the delay. The Court examined the reasons provided for the delay, emphasizing the daughter's illness and death, and the absence of the legal affairs handler as valid causes for the delay. The Court held that the reasons presented were sufficient and proper, justifying the condonation of the delay.

In the Court's opinion, the CESTAT erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. The Court found that the appellant had established proper and adequate reasons for the delay, warranting the condonation. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant were answered in their favor.

As a result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, setting aside the CESTAT's order and condoning the delay of 196 days in filing the appeal. The CESTAT was directed to proceed with the appeal promptly if the necessary documents were in order. No costs were awarded in the appeal, and the related Miscellaneous Petition was closed.