2015 (3) TMI 865 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Delay of 38/39 days in filing appeal - Held that - Court is not inclined to agree with the finding of the Tribunal refusing to condone the delay of 38/39 days in filing the appeal. The reason for the delay has been explained by the appellant - From the explanation offered by the appellant, it is clear that a decision was taken by a Committee of Commissioners and, therefore, there is no scope for the concerned Commissioner to interdict and seek for earlier review by the Committee. The delay was not within the hands of the concerned Commissioner. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag & Anr. - Vs MST Katiji & Ors. (1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court) and State of Nagaland Vs LIPOK AO (2005 (4) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) relied on by the counsel for the appellant is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay. In the circumstances, without going into the questions of law raised, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. - Order of Tribunal is set aside - Decidedin favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay petition dismissal by Tribunal.
2. Justification of dismissing main appeal while rejecting delay condonation prayer.

Issue 1 - Condonation of Delay Petition Dismissal:
The case involves the Revenue appealing the Tribunal's order dismissing their appeal and seeking condonation of a 39-day delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal rejected the delay condonation application. The appellant argued that a Committee of Commissioners made the decision to appeal, leaving no scope for individual Commissioner's decision, leading to the delay. The Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay was challenged. The appellant's reasons for delay included protracted correspondences and unavoidable delays in convening the Committee due to preoccupations. The Court found that the decisions of the Supreme Court cited by the appellant applied to the case, as sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal's decision and set it aside, allowing the appeal.

Issue 2 - Dismissing Main Appeal with Rejected Delay Condonation Prayer:
The facts of the case involve a manufacturer supplying to Indian Railways facing a demand for interest on differential duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, but the Revenue appealed with a delay condonation request, which the Tribunal rejected. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the Committee of Commissioners' decision-making process. The Court noted that the delay was not within the concerned Commissioner's control and cited relevant Supreme Court decisions supporting delay condonation in such cases. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order, directing the Tribunal to number the appeal and proceed with the case on merits promptly. No costs were awarded in this matter.