2015 (7) TMI 668 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Delay of 340 days - Held that - there was definitely material in the form of medical reports and records pertaining to the Petitioners and his immediate family members. The Tribunal proceeded on the footing as if the Petitioner failed to produce any evidence. That was definitely on record and its scrutiny would have enabled the Tribunal to exercise its powers to condone the delay and condone it if the cause was found to be reasonable and bona fide. Having noted the contents of both applications, namely, for condonation of delay and restoration, we are of the view that the delay of 340 days was capable of being condoned. The cause shown does not suffer from utter negligence or lack of bona fides. In these circumstances and when the reasons assigned for the delay were genuine, the initial application should have been allowed and the Petitioner given an opportunity to proceed with the Appeal on merits. - impugned order is quashed and set aside - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Consideration of medical reports and records as evidence for condonation of delay.
3. Discretion of the Tribunal in condoning delay based on reasons shown.
4. Quashing of the impugned order and setting aside the delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The main issue in this case was the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Petitioner had approached the Tribunal beyond the permissible time limit by 340 days, citing illness as the cause of delay for both himself and his family members.

Issue 2: The Tribunal initially dismissed the application seeking condonation of the delay, stating a lack of evidence regarding the illness of the Petitioner and his family members. However, upon further review, it was found that there were indeed medical reports and records supporting the reasons for the delay, which the Tribunal failed to consider initially.

Issue 3: The Petitioner argued that the Tribunal should have exercised its discretion and condoned the delay, as it was not intentional or deliberate. The Petitioner's counsel emphasized that the delay was due to genuine reasons, such as being alone in family and business matters, and proposed compensating the other party with costs as a reasonable approach.

Issue 4: The High Court, after examining the contents of the applications for condonation of delay and restoration, concluded that the delay of 340 days was capable of being condoned. The Court found the reasons for the delay to be genuine and not due to negligence or lack of bona fides. Therefore, the impugned order was quashed, and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, allowing the appeal to be heard on its merits.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the Tribunal should have considered the medical reports and records provided by the Petitioner and exercised its discretion to condone the delay. The Court set aside the delay, allowing the appeal to proceed and be heard on its merits, emphasizing the genuine reasons shown for the delay.