2018 (8) TMI 1920 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 717 in filing appeal - HELD THAT - Though delay was not very short, same was properly explained. The Courts have always leaned in favour of examining the issue on merits rather than rejecting the same on technical grounds of delay and laches, of course, as long as delay is properly explained. In the interest of justice therefore, delay is condoned. Judgment of the Tribunal is reversed. Tax appeal is placed before the Tribunal for disposal on merits - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging CESTAT judgment on delay condonation for filing appeal.

Analysis:
The High Court heard the appeal challenging the judgment of CESTAT, which had refused to condone the delay of 717 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining that an ex-employee, who was responsible for legal matters, did not inform the management about the order requiring challenge. Another individual later discovered the order, prompting the decision to file the appeal. The Court noted that while the delay was significant, it was properly explained. Emphasizing the principle of examining issues on merits rather than technical grounds, the Court favored condoning the delay in the interest of justice. Consequently, the Tribunal's judgment was reversed, and the tax appeal was remitted for disposal on merits.

The Court's decision to condone the delay was based on the fact that the circumstances leading to the delay were properly explained by the assessee. Despite the delay being substantial, the Court highlighted the importance of prioritizing the examination of issues on their merits rather than dismissing them solely on procedural grounds. By emphasizing the principle of justice, the Court reversed the Tribunal's decision and directed the tax appeal to be considered on its substantive merits for disposal.

In conclusion, the High Court reversed the Tribunal's judgment and remitted the tax appeal for disposal on merits. The Court's decision to condone the delay was grounded in the proper explanation provided by the assessee for the significant delay in filing the appeal. By prioritizing the examination of issues on their merits rather than technicalities, the Court upheld the principle of justice and ensured that the case would be considered on its substantive grounds during further proceedings before the Tribunal.