2017 (9) TMI 1736 - HC - Central Excise

Delay of 1731 days in fling appeal - Limitation Act - no satisfactory reason given for condonation of delay - case of appellant is that it came to know about the dismissal of its appeal on account of non-compliance only when other appeals were decided by the Tribunal - Held that - No satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the assessee for such an inordinately long delay. Learned counsel for the assessee has also not been able to justify such a long delay in filing the appeal in this Court. The question regarding whether there is sufficient cause or not, depends upon each case and primarily is a question of fact to be considered taking into totality of events which had taken place in a particular case - According to the assessee, it came to know about the dismissal of its appeal on account of non-compliance only when other appeals were decided by the Tribunal. This is not a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Delay cannot be condoned - Application for condonation of delay is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal
The appellant-assessee filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act against the order passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Department issued a show cause notice alleging wrongful crediting of Cenvat credit without actual transfer of goods, leading to a recovery of credit, interest, and penalty. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) and then to the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance. The appellant learned about the dismissal later when other appeals were decided. The Tribunal eventually decided in favor of the assessees in 2016, prompting the instant appeal by the appellant-assessee.

Issue 2: Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
The delay in filing the present appeal was 1731 days. An application for condonation of delay was filed, but the court found the explanation provided unsatisfactory. The court referred to a previous case analyzing the principles for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the law of limitation is based on public policy to prevent uncertainty for an unlimited period. The court noted that the existence of sufficient cause for delay depends on the facts of each case, with no strict rule applicable. The court highlighted that the delay in this case was due to the appellant learning about the dismissal only when other appeals were decided, which was not considered a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the main appeal as well.

This judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana addressed the issues of delay in filing an appeal under the Central Excise Act and the condonation of such delay under the Limitation Act. The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, emphasizing the need for sufficient cause to condone delay. The court's decision was based on the specific facts of the case, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.