2015 (10) TMI 674 - HC - Central Excise

condonation of delay - Delay of 53 days - Whether the CESTAT committed an error in not considering the reasonable explanation put forth for condonation of delay of 53 days caused in filing the appeal - Held that - Tribunal chose not to condone the delay of 53 days in preferring the appeal on the ground that no cause was pointed out for such condonation. The Tribunal also was of the opinion that the adjournment sought for, for the first time, came to be granted and matter was directed to be listed on 30th December, 2013. However, for the second time also adjournment application was preferred by the advocate on record, and therefore, the Tribunal considering the fact that application for condonation of delay was filed on 30th July, 2013 could not be delayed further despite the application of adjournment proceeded with the matter and on merit, rejected the same - adjournment application did speak about ill-health and personal inconvenience of the learned counsel representing the petitioner before the Tribunal. Having found that the application tendered before the Tribunal did explain sufficiency of the reason for seeking adjournment and the delay of 53 days having been sufficiently explained - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding condonation of delay in filing appeal.

Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat heard a Tax Appeal challenging the decision of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding the condonation of a 53-day delay in filing the appeal. The main issue raised was whether the CESTAT erred in not considering the reasonable explanation provided for the delay. The Court noted that the Tribunal refused to condone the delay, citing the lack of a valid cause for such condonation. The Tribunal granted an adjournment for the first time but proceeded with the matter on the second adjournment application, leading to the rejection of the appeal on its merits.

During the High Court proceedings, it was argued that the adjournment application submitted to the Tribunal had explained the ill-health and personal inconvenience faced by the counsel representing the appellant. The Court found that the reasons for seeking adjournment were sufficient and that the delay had been adequately explained. Consequently, the Court allowed the Tax Appeal, holding that the Tribunal had erred in not condoning the delay. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant, overturning the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the High Court of Gujarat granted leave to amend the appeal and allowed the Tax Appeal, finding that the Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal was erroneous. The Court emphasized the importance of providing reasonable explanations for delays and upheld the appellant's arguments regarding the sufficiency of the reasons presented for seeking adjournment.