2018 (5) TMI 1918 - HC - Central Excise

Principles of natural justice - condonation of delay in filing appeal - HELD THAT - Misc. Appeal Nos. 213-215/2012 was preferred, because initially the appeal, which was preferred by this appellant, before the CESTAT, Kolkata was dismissed ex parte vide order dated 25-4-2012 and thereafter, Miscellaneous Application was preferred for quashing and setting aside the ex parte order which has also been dismissed vide order dated 30-8-2012 - It appears that Commissioner (Appeals) has not condoned the delay of 11 days and therefore, appeal was preferred before CESTAT, Kolkata and thereafter, again, Misc. Appeal had to be preferred by this appellant before the CESTAT, Kolkata. It ought to be kept in mind by the Commissioner (Appeals) that too much technicality ought not to have been taken. 11 days delay could have been condoned looking to the reasons given by this appellant by imposing reasonable cost. Unnecessarily, the work of the Court has been increased by the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter by CESTAT, Kolkata. Whenever such type of delay in double digit is occurring, it can be condoned by imposing a reasonable cost and as far as possible, the matter should be decided on merits, instead of falling into the trap of technicality - The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that if the amount involved is less than ₹ 10.00 Lacs or Rs. 25.00 Lacs and the delay is in double digit, it can be condoned very easily by the Commissioner (Appeals), instead of increasing the work of higher hierarchy. Delay condoned - matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi by restoring Order-in-Appeal No. 39/JSR/2009 - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay condonation by Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT, Kolkata
2. Dismissal of the Tax Appeal by CESTAT, Kolkata
3. Legal technicalities and imposition of costs
4. Decision to quash and set aside previous orders and remand the matter

Analysis:
1. The Tax Appeal was filed due to the dissatisfaction with the order passed by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata, confirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision of not condoning the delay of 11 days. The appellant had to file multiple appeals and applications due to procedural issues.

2. The appellant's initial appeal was dismissed ex parte by CESTAT, Kolkata, leading to further legal proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court intervened and directed the restoration of the Tax Appeal for a hearing on merits by the High Court upon payment of costs.

3. The Court emphasized that technicalities should not overshadow the merits of a case, especially when delays are minimal. The imposition of a reasonable cost could have sufficed to address the delay issue instead of escalating the matter through multiple levels of adjudication.

4. The High Court quashed and set aside the orders passed by CESTAT, Kolkata and the Commissioner (Appeals), remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on the merits within a specified timeframe. The delay of 11 days was condoned, and the Court stressed the need for timely and efficient resolution of such matters to avoid unnecessary legal complications.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural complexities, legal technicalities, and the ultimate decision of the High Court to address the delay issue and ensure a fair hearing on the merits of the Tax Appeal.