2019 (1) TMI 1716 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - general illness shown for delay - sufficient cause given for delay or not - HELD THAT - No doubt that, an application for condonation of delay is required to be treated leniently. However, the application for condonation of delay is required to explain the delay. Explanation of delay must be sufficient - In the present case, the petitioner puts forth a general illness so as to seek condonation of delay in excess of 400 days in making and filing the appeal. The general illness does not cover the entire period. The petitioner is a partnership firm. There are more than one person as partners of the firm. The application does not explain why the other partners were inactive in pursuing the appeal. The location of the other partners in different parts of the country may not, by itself, be sufficient explanation. There is nothing on record to suggest that by virtue of their locations the other partners of the firm were incapacitated from pursuing the appeal. Application for condonation of delay dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for restoration - CAN No. 3555 of 2018
2. Challenge to CESTAT order - WP No. 6214(W) of 2018

Analysis:
1. Application for Restoration (CAN No. 3555 of 2018): The application for restoration was accepted based on sufficient causes shown, leading to the recall of the order of dismissal dated May 16, 2018. Consequently, WP No. 6214(W) of 2018 was restored to its original file and number. The application under CAN No. 3555 of 2018 was allowed without any order as to costs.

2. Challenge to CESTAT Order (WP No. 6214(W) of 2018): The writ petition challenged an order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, where an application for condonation of delay was rejected on March 22, 2018. The impugned order noted the absence of a specific explanation for the delay other than a general reason of illness, leading to the refusal to condone the delay. The petitioner argued for lenient consideration citing medical evidence of illness and the meritorious nature of the appeal. However, the Court emphasized that while delay applications should be viewed leniently, a sufficient and plausible explanation is necessary. In this case, the petitioner's general illness explanation did not cover the entire delay period, especially considering the partnership firm structure with multiple partners. The Court found that the illness did not incapacitate the person from pursuing the appeal, and the CESTAT's decision to reject the delay condonation was upheld. The Court clarified that leniency in delay condonation does not equate to automatic allowance, emphasizing the need for plausible explanations for delay condonation.

In conclusion, the writ petition challenging the CESTAT order was dismissed with no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of the order were to be provided to the parties upon fulfilling the necessary formalities.