2016 (6) TMI 408 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - 405 days - Imposition of duty and personal penalty - Held that - the said order certainly is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. Though, while dismissing the condonation petition, CESTAT, Chennai Bench, has observed that there is no justifiable cause, going through the reasons assigned, it could be seen that the appellant has not offered a detailed explanation. Also the Tribunal has observed that dislocation of residence is not a justifiable cause. But the fact remains that the appellant has contended that his mother had passed away. As rightly contended by the appellant that length of time, should not weigh in the minds of the Courts/tribunals, in considering the sufficiency of the cause shown, but at the same time, cause should be explanatory. The appellant is also of the view that reasons assigned are not explained in details, but considering the prejudice to be caused, in the event of dismissal of the applications filed to condone the delay and following the principles of law enunciated in the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, we are inclined to condone the delay of 405 days in filing the appeal before CESTAT on condition that the appellant pays costs of a sum of ₹ 2,500/- in each of the appeals to My Lord the Hon ble Chief Justice s Relief Fund, within a period of three weeks. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals before CESTAT.
2. Applicability of principles of law in condonation of delay cases.
3. Justifiability of reasons for delay in filing appeals.
4. Consideration of prejudice caused by dismissal of delay condonation applications.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) due to a delay of 405 days in filing appeals against the final orders imposing duty and personal penalty. The appellant cited reasons such as misplacement of the order, personal bereavement, and being outside the country as causes for the delay.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay should be condoned based on established legal principles, emphasizing the need for a liberal and pragmatic approach in condonation cases. Reference was made to the Supreme Court decision in Esha Battacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, highlighting the importance of substantial justice and non-pedantic interpretation of "sufficient cause."

3. The tribunal dismissed the condonation petitions, stating that the reasons provided were not satisfactory. The appellant contended that the dislocation of residence and the death of the appellant's mother were significant factors contributing to the delay. The court analyzed the reasons given and found that while the appellant's explanations lacked detail, the prejudice caused by dismissing the appeals warranted condonation of the delay.

4. Considering the potential injustice of dismissing the appeals due to the delay, the court decided to condone the delay of 405 days on the condition that the appellant pays costs to the Hon'ble Chief Justice's Relief Fund. The court emphasized the need to balance the principles of justice and the explanation of causes for delay, ultimately allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and closing the related Miscellaneous Petitions.