2015 (8) TMI 778 - HC - Customs

Condonation of Delay Impugned order of CESTAT rejected application on grounds that appellant receiving orders belatedly, did not absolve him of limitation prescribed Whether CESTAT was right in rejecting application seeking condonation of delay Held that - having complied with adjudicating authority s order, denial of right to appeal would undoubtedly prejudice assesse This being important factor which cannot be overlooked Court of opinion that larger interest of justice lies in condoning delay Tribunal to decide appeal on its merits Appeal allowed Decided in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
2. Consideration of delay in approaching the higher forum.
3. Balance between compliance with adjudicating authority's order and right to appeal.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The primary issue in this case revolved around the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before CESTAT. The appellant had suffered an adverse order by the adjudicating Commissioner on a specific date but filed the appeal after a considerable delay. The application seeking condonation of delay did not specify the exact time of delay, and there were defects in the supporting affidavits. The Revenue contended that the appellant had not disclosed its bona fides adequately, and another party had approached CESTAT earlier. The CESTAT rejected the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for filing appeals.

Issue 2: Another crucial aspect considered was the delay in approaching the higher forum for redressal. The CESTAT, while acknowledging the right of redressal through appeal, highlighted the necessity of exercising this right within the prescribed time limit. It was observed that the appellant's claim of receiving orders belatedly did not justify the delay, and a prudent litigant would not delay approaching the higher forum. The CESTAT's decision was influenced by the fact that another party had faced penalties and approached CESTAT earlier, indicating a lack of diligence on the part of the appellant.

Issue 3: The court, after hearing arguments from both parties, recognized the dilemma faced by the appellant, who had complied with the adjudicating authority's order by depositing a substantial amount. While acknowledging the lack of locus standi due to the delayed appeal, the court also noted that denying the right to appeal would severely prejudice the appellant. Balancing these considerations, the court decided in favor of condoning the delay in approaching CESTAT, emphasizing the importance of justice and directing the parties to appear before CESTAT for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals, the prudence required in approaching higher forums promptly, and the delicate balance between compliance with orders and the right to appeal. The decision to allow the appeal and condone the delay underscored the court's commitment to ensuring justice while considering the unique circumstances of the case.