2014 (11) TMI 494 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Delay caused due to application filed to make the correct to mistake in the impugned order - Whether the expression sufficient cause means the delay has to be appropriately explained by showing the factual causes sufficiently leading to the delay or it should be interpreted that the factual cause itself should be justified and reason on its own merit notwithstanding the fact that the reasons for the delay have been sufficiently explained - Held that - It is a settled legal position that the law of limitation has not been enacted for the purpose of defeating the rights of the parties and if a person has not been diligent and acted in a mala fide and with deliberate intention presented the appeal belatedly for certain other reasons then it would be a case where the Court would not exercise discretion in condoning the delay. From the facts of the case the case on hand does not appear to be one such case as there is no dispute regarding the communications between the appellant and the department and even in the communication dated 8-9-2008 the Commissioner has observed that if the appellant does not accept the order dated 14-3-2008 it is open to them to move the higher appellate forum - Delay condoned - matter restored before the tribunal - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order by Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed as barred by limitation.
- Interpretation of "sufficient cause" for delay in filing appeal.
- Confiscation and auction of goods due to diversion by purchaser.
- Request for corrigendum and delay in receiving response.
- Tribunal's rejection of application for condonation of delay.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the High Court challenged the Tribunal's dismissal of the appellant's appeal as barred by limitation. The primary issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "sufficient cause" in relation to the delay in filing the appeal. The Court admitted the appeal based on the substantial question of law regarding the explanation required for a delay to be considered justified.

2. The appellant, a Hong Kong-based company, had shipped mulberry silk to buyers in India, with some consignments remaining unpaid. Upon discovering diversion of raw silk by a purchaser, leading to confiscation and auction of goods, the appellant sought permission to take back the goods. Despite multiple communications requesting a corrigendum and clarification on the amount payable, the appellant faced delays in responses from the authorities.

3. The Tribunal, in its order, dismissed the appeal citing lack of acceptable explanation for the delay. However, the High Court noted that the appellant had diligently communicated with the authorities seeking clarification and correction, with the final response received after multiple reminders. The Court emphasized that the law of limitation is not meant to defeat parties' rights and that the appellant's actions did not indicate mala fide intentions.

4. Considering the facts presented, the High Court concluded that the appellant had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. As a result, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and granted the application for condonation of delay. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for further consideration on merits, highlighting the importance of diligent communication and the need to interpret "sufficient cause" in a reasonable manner.

5. The judgment underscored the significance of parties' efforts in addressing delays and the necessity for authorities to consider the circumstances leading to delays before dismissing appeals on grounds of limitation. By setting aside the Tribunal's decision and allowing the appeal, the High Court ensured that the appellant's case would be reconsidered based on its merits, emphasizing the principles of fairness and procedural justice in legal proceedings.