2016 (8) TMI 755 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - 84 days - Erroneous refund - Held that - no one appeared on behalf of appellant, therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay by imposing cost for the lapse on the part of appellant. Accordingly the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, but on payment of cost of ₹ 2000/-. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against order dated 8.4.2015 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkata in Appeal No. Ex. Ap. 75246/2014. Delay of 84 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal's rejection of the application for condonation of delay. Argument regarding condonation of delay and decision on merit.

Analysis:

The judgment deals with an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against an order passed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant was issued a show cause notice for an alleged erroneous refund and a penalty, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The appellant's subsequent appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were dismissed due to a delay of 84 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, resulting in the rejection of the application for condonation of delay.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merit. The High Court emphasized the importance of deciding disputes on merit rather than technical grounds like limitation. Considering the delay was only 84 days and no one appeared on behalf of the appellant during the hearing, the High Court held that the delay should be condoned by imposing a cost of ?2000 on the appellant. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, directed the appellant to deposit the cost within a month, and instructed the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merit thereafter.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for courts to prioritize substantive justice over technicalities, provided that delays are not deliberate and can be explained. The judgment highlights the court's discretion to condone delays in the interest of justice, subject to appropriate costs being imposed on the defaulting party.