2017 (8) TMI 1592 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 780 days in filing appeal - sufficient reasons present for condonation - HELD THAT - The delay was about 780 days. The appeal before the Tribunal was under Section 35B of the Act. Though sub-section (3) of Section 35B prescribes it period of limitation of 3 months, sub-section (5) gives a discretion for the Tribunal to condone the delay. No outer limit is prescribed, curtailing the power of Tribunal to condone the delay beyond a period. There was sufficient cause for the appellant for the delay - Therefore, the question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and the appeal is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Tribunal's discretion to condone delay under Section 35B; Comparison of delay condonation in previous cases.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court involved an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay by the CESTAT. The primary issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay in this case was substantial, amounting to about 780 days, and the appeal was made under Section 35B of the Act. Section 35B(3) sets a limitation period of 3 months for filing appeals, but Section 35B(5) grants the Tribunal discretion to condone delays without specifying an outer limit.

In the judgment, it was noted that in a previous case involving the same assessee, the Tribunal had condoned a similar delay, even though the reasons for the delay were almost identical. The Court carefully examined the affidavit supporting the application for condonation of delay and found sufficient cause to justify the delay. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and condoning the delay in filing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was instructed to proceed with numbering the appeal and dispose of it on its merits, leading to the closure of any related pending petitions.

This judgment underscores the importance of assessing each case individually when considering the condonation of delays in legal proceedings. It highlights the discretionary power of the Tribunal to condone delays under Section 35B(5) and the need to establish sufficient cause for the delay. By comparing the treatment of delays in similar cases involving the same party, the judgment emphasizes the consistent application of legal principles and the fair treatment of appellants seeking redress through the legal system.