2014 (9) TMI 559 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Held that - Tribunal had permitted the Revenue to file additional statement in support of the delay condonation application. We have perused such an additional statement filed by the Revenue at Annexure G to the appeal. We are broadly in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent that the statement itself should not be sufficient to condone the delay. It is, of course, true that the Revenue had pressed in service strong prima facie case and substantial questions of law being involved. These, though would be relevant considerations, cannot form the sole basis for condoning delay in absence of any explanation whatsoever. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to place the proceedings back to the Tribunal for giving one opportunity to the Revenue to file additional affidavit. Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of decision by Revenue on delay in filing appeal, justification of Tribunal's decision, permissibility of additional statement for delay condonation, setting aside the impugned order, revival of proceedings by Tribunal, directions for filing additional affidavit, cost imposition on the appellant.

Analysis:
The High Court dealt with the challenge raised by the Revenue against the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay, which the Revenue contested. The Court acknowledged the substantial questions presented by the Revenue and opined that the appeal should not have been dismissed based solely on delay. The Court noted that while the Tribunal had permitted the Revenue to file an additional statement in support of the delay condonation application, the statement itself was deemed insufficient to justify the delay. Despite the strong prima facie case and substantial legal questions involved, the Court emphasized that a mere presentation of these factors cannot be the sole basis for condoning the delay without any proper explanation provided by the Revenue.

The Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 2-7-2012 and directed the revival of proceedings by the Tribunal. It allowed the Revenue an opportunity to file an additional affidavit by a specified date, emphasizing the need for a proper explanation for the delay. The Tribunal was instructed to reconsider the entire issue afresh after the submission of the additional affidavit. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the appeal by imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the appellant in favor of the respondent. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing a satisfactory explanation for delay in legal proceedings and the need for proper justification beyond the mere presence of substantial legal questions.