2007 (12) TMI 11 - SC - Central Excise

Application for condonation of delay rejected by Comm.(A), Tribunal as well as HC No sufficient cause shown for delay of 20 months in filing appeal Plea that , because of lack of experience in business there was delay, is not a adequate reason So, appeal deserves to be dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing Writ Petition based on delay in filing appeal under Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was dismissed due to delay in filing the appeal. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, noting that the Commissioner had no power to condone the delay beyond the statutory period. The appellant relied on a decision to argue that the High Court could condone the delay, but this was rejected. The appellant contended that the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, could condone the delay even if the Commissioner lacked such power.

The appellant's counsel argued that the High Court could condone the delay under Article 226 of the Constitution, despite the Commissioner's limitations. On the other hand, the respondents supported the orders of the Commissioner and the High Court. Section 35 of the Act allows appeals to be filed within sixty days, with a provision for a further thirty days if sufficient cause is shown. The appellant emphasized the use of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay.

The Commissioner and the High Court were justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay beyond the specified period. The appellate authority can only allow the appeal to be presented within 30 days after the 60-day period for filing the appeal. The exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is clear, and the legislative intent was to limit the condonation of delay to 30 days after the initial 60-day period. The appellant cited previous cases to argue for condonation based on sufficient cause.

The concept of "sufficient cause" was discussed, emphasizing that it must be adequate and there is no fixed formula for accepting or rejecting explanations for delay. In this case, the appellant's explanation for a 20-month delay was that the business was practically closed, which was not considered a valid reason. Previous cases were distinguished, and it was concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. No costs were awarded in this matter.