2008 (9) TMI 185 - HC - Central Excise

Delay of more than 800 days in preferring the appeal against order of Commissioner (A) - petitioner has filed the appeal before the Tribunal only when the SC reversed finally its earlier decision and thereafter for one year no action has been taken by the petitioner not explained as to why the petitioner has taken one year s time in filing the appeal - Tribunal has taken appropriate decision in rejecting the application for condonation of delay as the delay is of more than two years

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for refusing to condone delay in filing appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals) orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeals: The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order refusing to condone the delay of over 800 days in filing appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals) orders. The petitioner contended that the delay should have been condoned due to the changing legal position following the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Vikram Cement Limited. However, the Tribunal rejected the condonation application, considering the delay of more than two years and the fact that the petitioner took an additional year after the Supreme Court's decision to file the appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the stake involved was relatively small, with appeals filed against penalties of Rs.10,000 each in three cases.

2. Justification of Tribunal's Decision: The High Court analyzed the Tribunal's decision and the petitioner's contentions. It observed that the Tribunal's rejection of the condonation application was justified, considering the significant delay in filing the appeals and the lack of a proper explanation for the delay. The Court noted that the petitioner had accepted the Commissioner (Appeals) orders and delayed filing the appeals even after the Supreme Court's decision in Vikram Cement Limited. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the amount involved was small, further supporting the rejection of the condonation application.

3. Legal Precedents and Arguments: The petitioner relied on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to argue for condonation of delay based on changing legal positions. However, the High Court found this argument irrelevant in the present case due to the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeals. The Court emphasized that technicalities of law cannot override the need for substantial justice, but in this instance, the delay was not adequately justified.

4. Final Decision: After considering all aspects of the case, the High Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to reject the condonation application was just and appropriate given the circumstances. The Court declined to intervene using its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and dismissed all three petitions challenging the Tribunal's order.

In summary, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to refuse condonation of delay in filing appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals) orders, citing the significant delay, lack of proper explanation, and the relatively small amount at stake as key factors in its decision. The Court emphasized the importance of timely legal actions and declined to interfere with the Tribunal's ruling, ultimately dismissing the petitioner's challenges.