2014 (11) TMI 388 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - whether the Tribunal has exercised its discretion to condone the delay in accordance with law - Held that - Tribunal has condoned the delay subject to an order of costs. The Tribunal, in fairness, did observe that though the assessee had not given a detailed elaboration of the reasons for his absence from Mumbai which led to the delay, an order of costs would serve the ends of justice. The Tribunal has taken an overall view in the interest of justice. The issue is as to whether the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction can interfere in the exercise of its discretion. Once it is held that the Tribunal did, indeed, have a discretionary jurisdiction, as a first appellate body against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this Court would be slow to interfere, particularly having regard to the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 86(1) of the Act of 1994. The High Court, in this view of the matter, ought not to substitute its own view in the exercise of discretion where the discretion which has been exercised by the Tribunal is within the parameters of law and the Tribunal is not found to have acted outside its jurisdiction. Consequently and for these reasons, we find that no substantial question of law would arise. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) by CESTAT.
2. Justification of CESTAT in condoning delay in filing appeal beyond statutory period.
3. CESTAT's authority to condone delay and direct case decision on merit.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The primary issue in this case is the interpretation of Section 85 of the Act of 1994 regarding the limitation for filing an appeal against an order of adjudication. The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals) within the stipulated time frame. The Court emphasized that the legislative provision clearly defines the period of limitation in terms of months, which must be interpreted as calendar months. The Court cited previous judgments to support this interpretation, highlighting that the expression "three months" cannot be equated to "ninety days" and must be construed as three calendar months.

Issue 2: The Court further examined whether the Tribunal appropriately exercised its discretion in condoning the delay within the statutory limit prescribed by Section 85(3). The Tribunal's decision to impose a cost for condoning the delay was considered a fair approach to serve the interests of justice. The Court emphasized that as long as the Tribunal's discretion falls within the legal parameters and jurisdiction, interference by the High Court in the exercise of discretion should be minimal. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law arising in this regard and dismissed the appeal.

Issue 3: The final issue addressed was the expeditious disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) as directed by the Court. The Court instructed the Commissioner to handle the appeal promptly, preferably within three months of receiving the order. No costs were awarded in this matter. The judgment concluded by highlighting the importance of respecting the Tribunal's discretionary jurisdiction and refraining from interference unless the Tribunal acts beyond its legal boundaries.

In summary, the judgment delves into the nuances of statutory interpretation, discretion exercised by tribunals, and the appellate court's role in reviewing such decisions. It underscores the significance of adhering to legal provisions while allowing flexibility within the framework of the law.