2015 (9) TMI 1027 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - delay of about 175 days in filing the appeal - refund of the import duty wrongly paid - Held that - Confusion arose due to the wrong-pasting of the speed post slips by the Office of the respondent to the Bollaram address instead of Bachupally address. The application was dismissed solely on the ground that though the order was received on 28.10.2010, no cogent explanation was given from 28.10.2010 to 04.02.2011 and the affidavit of the Officer, who received the said order, was not filed. The correspondence filed before us and admitted by the respondent in their reply thereto clearly shows that the appellant was diligent in pursuing its case. - order passed by the Tribunal is perverse and accordingly we set aside the same and condone the delay of about 175 days in filing the appeal - Delay condoned conditionally.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal due to administrative mishandling of order delivery.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and sought condonation of a 175-day delay in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to the administrative mishandling of the delivery of the order-in-appeal. The appellant contended that the order was received by an officer in the R&D Wing of the unit but was not promptly communicated to the concerned officers. Despite diligent efforts by the appellant to obtain the order, confusion arose due to the wrong-pasting of speed post slips by the Commissioner's office to the wrong address. The Tribunal dismissed the condonation application citing lack of a sufficient explanation for the delay between the receipt of the order and subsequent actions by the appellant.

Upon review, the High Court found the reasons provided by the appellant satisfactory. The Court noted the diligence displayed by the appellant in pursuing the case, especially in light of the confusion caused by the administrative errors in address handling. The Court held the Tribunal's decision to be perverse and set it aside. The delay of 175 days was condoned subject to the appellant paying a specified amount within a stipulated time frame. The Court directed the Tribunal to accept the appeal and proceed with its adjudication in accordance with the law. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and any related miscellaneous petitions were also disposed of accordingly.