2015 (1) TMI 1425 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - By the first order the stay application was dismissed for want of non-prosecution and, by the second order, the appeal was dismissed for not complying with the order of the Tribunal dated 30th August, 2013 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the order dated 30th August, 2013 was an ex parte order. Since certain directions were indicated in that order, which was not known to the petitioner, therefore, the question of its compliance on or before the next date of hearing could not arise. The Tribunal was harsh in dismissing the appeal on a technicality - matter remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal on merit after hearing the parties - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, dismissal of stay application, dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with Tribunal's order, harshness of Tribunal's decision.

Delay in Filing Appeal:
The judgment addresses a delay of 236 days in filing the appeal, which the appellant explained was due to medical reasons supported by a medical certificate. The court, after perusing the medical certificate, found the delay satisfactorily explained and allowed the application for condoning the delay.

Dismissal of Stay Application and Appeal for Non-Compliance:
The appeal was filed against two orders - one dismissing the stay application for non-prosecution and the other dismissing the appeal for not complying with the Tribunal's order dated 30th August, 2013. The court noted that the order of 30th August, 2013 was ex parte, and certain directions in that order were not known to the appellant, making compliance impossible. The court deemed the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal on a technicality as harsh. Consequently, the court set aside the orders of 30th August, 2013 and 30th September, 2013, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for a merit-based decision after hearing the parties.

Harshness of Tribunal's Decision:
The court found the Tribunal's decision to be harsh in dismissing the appeal based on a technicality. As a remedy, the court overturned the previous orders and directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within four weeks as a condition precedent for the appeal to be heard before the Tribunal. This directive aimed to ensure a fair hearing on the merits of the case.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the delay in filing the appeal, the dismissal of the stay application and appeal for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order, and the perceived harshness of the Tribunal's decision. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous orders, and directed a deposit as a condition for the appeal to be heard on merit, emphasizing fairness in the adjudicatory process.