2008 (3) TMI 132 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay application rejected by tribunal on the ground that the application has been filed only after disposal of the appeal - in an application of this nature, an effort should be made to give an opportunity to party, where substantial rights are sought to be affected - Tribunal shall take up the main appeal on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to both the sides delay is accordingly condoned

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing a regular appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench at Bangalore.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The main challenge in this Writ Petition was against the rejection of an application seeking condonation of a 214-day delay in filing a regular appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench at Bangalore. The reason provided for the delay was based on the appeal filed by the party and its subsequent allowance. The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides, rejected the condonation application stating that it was filed only after the appeal was disposed of, and the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and the appeal's outcome. The Writ Petition was filed challenging this decision.

2. Upon hearing both sides and examining the available material, the judges found that due to the sequence of events resulting from the appeal being allowed, where the petitioner's rights were established, the reason given for the delay was sufficient to warrant giving an opportunity to the petitioner. The judges emphasized that in such applications, efforts should be made to provide an opportunity when significant rights are at stake. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the Writ Petition was allowed.

3. The final decision of the court was to allow the Writ Petition. The Tribunal was directed to proceed with the main appeal on its merits and dispose of it in accordance with the law. Both parties were to be given notice and an opportunity to present their case, with no costs imposed. The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring that opportunities are granted when substantial rights are involved, leading to the condonation of the delay in this case.