2014 (12) TMI 735 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Misplacement of order - wrong availment of cenvat credit - Held that - personal reasons attributed to the stress undergone by Sri.Ramakrishnan, who was in incharge of the case and the fact that he has submitted a letter of resignation earlier to the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) and was relieved subsequently on 19.2.2013 are not in dispute. Therefore, the appellant s plea that there was good reason for not filing the appeal for the aforesaid reason appears to be a bona fide reason. Further more, the appellant has been continuously pursing his matter before the Adjudicating Authority as well as before the Commissioner (Appeals). The same is borne out by records and the appellant s plea is bona fide. In our considered opinion, the same would constitute sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. - Following decision of The Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Alleged contravention of provisions of sub-Rule 3A of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002
- Appeal against order demanding payment of duty and penalty
- Dismissal of appeal by Tribunal due to delay of 73 days
- Request to condone the delay and set aside Tribunal's order

Analysis:

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal pertains to the appellant, engaged in manufacturing SG & Grey Iron castings, challenging an order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant cleared goods under self-assessment and self-removal procedure, facing allegations of contravention of sub-Rule 3A of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal, accompanied by a request to condone a 73-day delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing gross negligence and inaction by the appellant, refusing to condone the delay. The appellant contested this decision, arguing that the delay was due to personal reasons affecting a key individual involved in the case. The appellant's continuous pursuit of the matter before authorities was deemed bona fide, establishing "sufficient cause" for the delay, as per legal precedents. Citing a Supreme Court decision emphasizing substantial justice over technical considerations, the Court decided to condone the delay, setting aside the Tribunal's order and instructing a review of the appeal on its merits.

In conclusion, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, with no costs imposed, as the Court intervened to address the delay issue and ensure a fair consideration of the appellant's case by the Tribunal.