2002 (5) TMI 885 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal for condonation of delay before Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) rejected - Challenge to the rejection order - Sufficiency of explanation for delay - Application of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 - Justification for delay - Application of legal principles for condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The petitioner appealed before CEGAT along with an application for condonation of delay, which was rejected in an order dated 16th January, 2002. The petitioner argued that the rejection was unjustified and relied on a Supreme Court decision to support the contention. On the other hand, the respondent claimed that the explanation for delay was insufficient and that the order was well-reasoned and should not be interfered with. The respondent emphasized that the matter was not pending as claimed by the petitioner under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, and the delay was about 7 months.

The Court noted that the petitioner believed the matter was pending, leading to the delay, and had taken steps under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, which did not apply. The delay was attributed to an internal system issue where the order was not forwarded to the appropriate officer. The Court considered the petitioner's bona fide belief and lack of mala fide intent to delay the process. It was observed that the delay was not intentional, and the Tribunal did not find any mala fide on the petitioner's part.

Referring to the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, the Court emphasized that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion and the length of delay is not decisive. The Court highlighted the importance of advancing substantial justice and the need to avoid dilatory tactics. The Court adopted a pragmatic approach and justified condoning the delay based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court directed the Tribunal to register the appeal and decide the matter promptly, within three months.

In conclusion, the Court justified condoning the delay based on the principles outlined in the Supreme Court decision and directed the Tribunal to proceed with the appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, emphasizing the need for prompt resolution of the matter in accordance with the law.