2015 (10) TMI 707 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Delay of 175 days - CA did not performed his obligations - Alternate arrangements caused delay - Held that - Tribunal appears to have been primarily of the opinion that the explanation for the delay was unacceptable in view of the failure of the respondent to even disclose the name of the Chartered Accountant making their application for condonation of delay casual in nature. Now that the appellant has furnished proper details of the Chartered Accountant in question and also explained the steps taken by it subsequently in the additional affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay filed earlier, we are of the considered opinion that a final adjudicatory order is always desirable in preference to an order on technicalities. In the facts of the case, we are satisfied to condone the delay and direct restoration of the appeal before the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal delay before Tribunal, condonation of delay, restoration of appeal, statutory discretion

Appeal Delay Before Tribunal:
The appeal in question was delayed by 175 days due to the failure of the previous Chartered Accountant to perform obligations, leading to the appellant having to make alternate arrangements. The respondent opposed the appeal, stating that even the appeal before the High Court was barred by 104 days. The Tribunal initially found the explanation for the delay unacceptable, as the respondent failed to disclose the name of the Chartered Accountant, making their application for condonation of delay casual. However, upon the appellant providing proper details and explanations in an additional affidavit, the High Court deemed a final adjudicatory order preferable over technicalities. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was directed to be restored before the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with the law.

Condonation of Delay:
The High Court considered the appellant's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the importance of a final adjudicatory order over technicalities. The appellant's submission of proper details and steps taken after the delay, as explained in the additional affidavit, played a crucial role in the Court's decision to condone the delay. The Court highlighted the necessity of a comprehensive review of the circumstances leading to the delay and found the appellant's actions post-delay satisfactory, leading to the favorable decision to condone the delay and allow the appeal.

Restoration of Appeal:
In light of the Court's decision to condone the delay, the order dated 8-4-2013 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Court directed the restoration of the appeal before the Tribunal for further proceedings in accordance with the law. By setting aside the previous order and allowing the appeal, the Court ensured that the appellant's case would be reconsidered without the hindrance of the delay issue, emphasizing the importance of substantive justice over procedural technicalities.

Statutory Discretion:
The High Court clarified that all other aspects, including statutory considerations, would remain within the discretion of the Tribunal in accordance with the law. By emphasizing the Tribunal's authority to exercise discretion in line with legal provisions, the Court ensured that the Tribunal would have the necessary jurisdiction to handle the case's remaining aspects and make decisions as per the applicable statutes. This clarification underscored the importance of legal procedures and statutory compliance in the overall adjudication process.