2017 (8) TMI 826 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - Held that - the delay caused in preferring the appeal has been sufficiently and properly explained - The Department was bonafidely prosecuting the rectification application and thereafter on rejection of the rectification application, appeal has been preferred challenging the original order passed by the learned CESTAT. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any deliberate delay on the part of the Revenue/Department in not preferring the appeal - delay condoned - COD allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay of 502 days in preferring the Tax Appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad.

Analysis:
The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the 502-day delay in filing the Tax Appeal against the CESTAT's judgment and order dated 4-12-2014. The Revenue/Department had initially submitted a rectification application after the impugned judgment, which was rejected by CESTAT on 10-9-2015. Subsequently, the Department challenged this rejection through Tax Appeal No. 226/2016, dismissed by the Division Bench on 28-4-2016. Following approval, the Department decided to appeal against the original CESTAT order, leading to the current appeal with the delay. The Department explained that the delay was due to the bona fide prosecution of the rectification application and subsequent appeal, without any deliberate delay or negligence. The Court found the delay sufficiently justified, not indicating any deliberate delay or negligence. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the applicant.

This judgment primarily dealt with the issue of condonation of a 502-day delay in filing a Tax Appeal against a CESTAT judgment. The applicant, the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, sought condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court considered the sequence of events, starting from the rejection of the rectification application to the dismissal of the subsequent appeal by the Division Bench. The Department's explanation for the delay highlighted the absence of deliberate delay or negligence, attributing it to the legitimate progression of legal procedures. The Court acknowledged the Department's efforts in pursuing the rectification application and subsequent appeal, leading to the decision to condone the delay and allow the appeal.

During the proceedings, the respondent, represented by M/s. Nanavati Associates, vehemently opposed the application, emphasizing the substantial 502-day delay in filing the appeal. However, the Court noted the Department's actions post the CESTAT judgment, including the rectification application and the subsequent appeal attempts. The Court observed that the delay was adequately explained by the Department's legitimate pursuit of legal remedies, without any deliberate intention to delay the appeal process. Ultimately, the Court found the Department's explanation satisfactory, leading to the decision to condone the delay and allow the appeal, ruling in favor of the applicant.