2015 (10) TMI 1952 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Delay of 16 days - Held that - First appellate authority has dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant belatedly by 16 days. It is undisputed fact that the first appellate authority has powers to condone the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. It is seen from the impugned order that the advocates/consultant of the appellant had categorically stated that the error in filing appeal, belatedly, is of the advocate and the clerk handling the issue. In our view, mistake or an error in the office of the advocate cannot be held against the appellant and can be the reason for condoning the delay. In our view, the first appellate authority should have condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merits. Suffice to say, that an appellate authority should try to dispose of appeal on merits, we set aside the impugned order after condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority, with the direction to restore the appeal and the stay petition to their original number and dispose of the same on merits after following the principles of natural justice. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Delay in filing appeal before the first appellate authority.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved a case where the first appellate authority had dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant belatedly by 16 days. The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority has the power to condone such delays. It was observed that the error in filing the appeal late was attributed to the advocate and the clerk handling the issue on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal held that a mistake or error in the advocate's office should not be held against the appellant, and it can be a valid reason for condoning the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the first appellate authority should have condoned the delay and heard the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and directed the first appellate authority to restore the appeal and the stay petition to their original number. The first appellate authority was instructed to dispose of the appeal on its merits after following the principles of natural justice. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand to the first appellate authority.

This judgment highlights the importance of considering the circumstances leading to a delay in filing an appeal before the first appellate authority. It underscores that errors or mistakes made by the advocate or their office should not be grounds for penalizing the appellant. The Tribunal's decision to remand the appeal to the first appellate authority underscores the significance of ensuring that appeals are heard on their merits and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The judgment serves as a reminder of the need for fair and just proceedings in appellate matters, even when procedural errors occur, to uphold the principles of justice and equity in legal proceedings.