2016 (10) TMI 387 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - jurisdiction of the CESTAT against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - failure to file the appeal within time was because of the illness of their Managing Director - Held that - The medical certificate, as produced, was issued by Ms.Uma Rani whose qualification, as recorded in the certificate itself, is M.B.B.S, D.G.O. The Managing Director of the appellant did not suffer from any gynaelogical disorder. It is difficult to believe that the Managing Director of appellant-Company would undergo treatment for Hypertension Heart Disease from a gynaecologist, and not a cardiologist for a heart disease. In any event, the medical certificate dated 23.02.2014 appears to have been obtained just before, and for the purpose of, filing the appeal before the Tribunal. No details as to the nature of treatment, which the Managing Director of the appellant-Company is said to have undergone from 01.07.2013 till 23.02.2014, are even referred to in the said certificate. - no reason found to exercise jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Act to interfere with the order under appeal. Delay not condoned - appeal rejected - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Medical certificate validity

Delay in filing appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 218 days against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal observed that the Managing Director's ill-health was cited as the reason for the delay. However, it was noted that the Managing Director was not regularly visiting the factory, and the affairs of the company were being managed by others. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the delay could not be condoned on flimsy grounds.

Condonation of delay:
The appellant submitted a medical certificate issued by a doctor, stating that the Managing Director was suffering from hypertension. The appellant argued that the delay could be condoned as the Managing Director's ill-health affected the filing of the appeal. The Tribunal, however, found that the medical certificate did not provide sufficient cause for the delay and dismissed the appeal.

Jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the CESTAT under Section 35G of the Act. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the grounds that there was no substantial question of law arising for consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that interference under Section 35G would only be justified if there was a substantial question of law based on evidence or perversity in the findings.

Medical certificate validity:
The medical certificate submitted by the appellant was issued by a doctor with qualifications in gynaecology, raising doubts about its validity regarding the Managing Director's treatment for Hypertensive Heart Disease. The certificate lacked details about the treatment received by the Managing Director from the specified period. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order based on the medical certificate's credibility.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no substantial question of law to warrant interference under Section 35G of the Act. The medical certificate's validity was questioned due to the doctor's specialization, lack of treatment details, and timing of issuance. The delay in filing the appeal was not condoned as the Managing Director's ill-health was deemed insufficient cause. The appeal was dismissed, and there were no costs awarded.