2016 (12) TMI 75 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay of 570 days - Held that - no party should be denied access to justice all due to lack of necessary financial support to bear the costs to litigate. In other words, distressful condition in which a litigant is positioned should not come in his way to seek a remedy against injustice caused to him - so long due to delay the opposite parties have not changed their position and if the opposite parties are not going to suffer any prejudice by the condonation of delay, a liberal approach can be adopted in the matter of condonation of such delays. In the instant case the Revenue s interests will not suffer any prejudice by condoning the delay. Normally, very liberal approach is adopted unless the delay itself is so enormous one which is almost as much as a period of limitation that was prescribed for initiating a legal proceedings seeking a similar relief in a civil Court. Wherever delay of certain extent, like in the instant case falls for consideration, the ends of justice would be served better by imposing certain terms on the party seeking condonation of delay so that it will serve the purpose of reminding the parties not to sleep over their right for too longer a period - the ends of justice would be served better if the delay in preferring the appeal by the appellant is condoned, but subject to payment of costs. Hence, the delay of 570 days in preferring both the appeals against the Orders in Original dated 28.02.2013 is condoned subject to payment of costs of ₹ 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) in each of the cases to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this High Court, on or before 25.11.2016 - delay condoned - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in preferring appeal against Orders-in-Original, Condonation of delay, Principles for condonation of delay, Financial constraints of the Assessee, Pre-deposit requirements, Access to justice, Prejudice to opposite parties, Liberal approach in condonation of delay, Imposition of costs for condonation.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns two appeals challenging the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's orders declining to condone a delay of 570 days in appealing against Orders-in-Original. The Assessee cited financial constraints for the delay, seeking time to gather necessary support for the appeal. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay, stating insufficient reasons were provided. However, the High Court noted the Supreme Court's principle that lack of financial support should not hinder access to justice and emphasized that as long as the delay does not prejudice the opposite party, a liberal approach should be adopted.

The High Court criticized the Tribunal for missing the essential principle laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. It highlighted that parties should not be denied justice due to financial constraints and that a liberal approach should be taken unless the delay is significant. In this case, the Revenue would not suffer prejudice by condoning the delay. The Court emphasized that the ends of justice would be better served by condoning the delay, subject to the payment of costs. The Assessee was directed to pay ?5000 in each case to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to the High Court.

The judgment was delivered after hearing the Standing Counsel's opposition to condoning the delay, arguing that the Assessee did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. The Counsel claimed that financial distress was an invented reason. However, the Court disagreed with these contentions based on the circumstances of the case. Consequently, both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were allowed, the Tribunal's orders were set aside, and no costs were imposed. The Court emphasized the importance of not delaying rights for an extended period and the need to remind parties to act promptly.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the principles of condonation of delay, ensuring access to justice despite financial constraints, and the imposition of costs to serve the ends of justice. The decision highlighted the importance of balancing the interests of both parties while upholding the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.