2016 (12) TMI 925 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CESTAT was justified in rejecting the application preferred on behalf of the appellant for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation? Held that - It is settled law that when the substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice has to be preferred. As laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. , 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court , the court should adopt liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay. The appellant had furnished the explanation that some time was spent in obtaining legal opinion from the Chartered Accountant, which was supported by various communications available on official record - Thus, the explanation furnished on behalf of the appellant explaining the delay in filing the appeal remains uncontroverted, which cannot be said to be unsatisfactory. The delay in filing the appeal stands sufficiently explained by the appellant and thus, CESTAT has erred in refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation - appeal allowed - delay condoned - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and was found to be barred by limitation for 72 days. The appellant explained the delay by stating that after receiving the order from the Commissioner (Appeals) on 2.3.12, they sought the opinion of a Chartered Accountant, who recommended filing the appeal with an application for condonation of delay. The corporate office of BSNL sanctioned the appeal on 13.7.12, and it was filed on 28.7.12. However, CESTAT dismissed the appeal without considering whether the explanation provided by the appellant constituted 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay, citing a Supreme Court decision regarding government departments' obligation to perform duties diligently.

The appellant argued that the delay explanation was not contested by the respondents, and CESTAT erred in deeming it unsatisfactory. They contended that government entities should be allowed some latitude for delays caused by the decision-making process. The appellant cited Supreme Court decisions in support of this argument. On the other hand, the respondents supported CESTAT's decision, stating that the delay reasons were unsatisfactory, and CESTAT's discretion to reject condonation of delay should not be interfered with by the court.

The High Court considered the submissions and reviewed the material on record. It noted the need to prioritize substantial justice over technicalities when deciding on condonation of delay. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the High Court emphasized that 'sufficient cause' under the Limitation Act should be interpreted liberally to serve the ends of justice. The court also highlighted previous Supreme Court judgments that recognized the need for leniency in cases involving government entities due to the bureaucratic decision-making process.

Based on the legal principles discussed and the facts of the case, the High Court found that the appellant's explanation for the delay was adequately supported by official communications and was not due to deliberate delay, negligence, or malice. Therefore, the High Court concluded that CESTAT erred in refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal as time-barred. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside CESTAT's decision, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and directed CESTAT to decide the appeal on its merits. No costs were awarded in the judgment.