2015 (10) TMI 690 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Delay of 100 days - petitioners urged that the peon of the Company who received orders in original did not hand over the same to the Managing Director for some time and therefore, there was some delay on his part and thereafter the Managing Director himself was suffering from diabetes and hyper-tension and other diseases - Held that - The delay was not so inordinate that the same could not have been with sufficient explanation not condoned. If the Tribunal was of the opinion that some further evidence in support was needed, the same could have been called for. However, when such facts are stated before us on affidavit, we would be inclined to condone the delay. Since petitioners failed to represent their case before the Tribunal, it must be held that they were partially responsible in the ultimate result. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to delay in filing Tax Appeals before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged an order by the Tribunal refusing to condone a 100-day delay in filing Tax Appeals. They argued that the delay was due to the peon not handing over the orders to the Managing Director promptly, followed by the Managing Director's health issues. The Tribunal rejected this explanation citing lack of supporting evidence and absence of representation during the hearing. The High Court noted that the delay was not excessive and could have been condoned with a proper explanation or additional evidence if required by the Tribunal. The Court expressed willingness to condone the delay based on the facts presented in the affidavit. However, it held the petitioners partially responsible for the outcome due to their failure to represent their case before the Tribunal.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, condoned the delay, and directed both Tax Appeals to be heard on merits. The petitioners were ordered to pay a cost of &8377; 5,000 each. The Court emphasized that despite the delay being justifiable, the petitioners' lack of representation before the Tribunal contributed to the decision. The judgment highlights the importance of providing sufficient explanation for delays in legal proceedings and actively participating in the case to avoid adverse outcomes.