2018 (9) TMI 1581 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 1233 days in filing the Tax Appeal - Compliance with pre-deposit duly made - Held that - The valuable statutory right of appeal would be lost to the assessee even after fulfilling the condition of predeposit; if the appeal is not heard on merits. It is true that this does not mean that the appeal should have been filed before the Tribunal after a long delay without explanation. However, the assessee has tried to explain the delay by pointing out that the manager had not brought the facts to the notice of the appellant. The assessee s appeal before the Appellate Commissioner would be revived and be heard on merits.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing Tax Appeal, Condonation of delay, Predeposit compliance

Delay in filing Tax Appeal:
The appeal was filed by the assessee challenging the judgment of the Tribunal, which refused to condone a delay of 1233 days in filing the Tax Appeal. The delay arose due to the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Commissioner on the ground of non-compliance with the predeposit requirement. The company had made the predeposit of the required amount promptly after the order but failed to report the compliance to the Commissioner, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

Condonation of delay:
The company filed an appeal before the Tribunal after a significant delay, seeking condonation of the delay. The company argued that there was no intention to delay the proceedings and explained that the manager had not brought the compliance facts to the notice of the company. The Court acknowledged that the delay should have been explained before filing the appeal but considered the oversight or technical flaw in reporting the compliance as a valid reason to condone the delay. The Court emphasized the importance of hearing the appeal on merits, especially when the predeposit condition had been fulfilled.

Predeposit compliance:
The Court recognized that the company had fulfilled the predeposit requirement, and the compliance was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner due to an oversight. The Court highlighted the liberal view taken by Courts in matters of predeposit and the significance of ensuring that the appeal is heard on merits even after fulfilling the predeposit condition. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and the Commissioner's order, reviving the assessee's appeal before the Appellate Commissioner to be heard on merits.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and the Commissioner's order, allowing the assessee's appeal to be heard on merits before the Appellate Commissioner. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that appeals are heard on merits, especially when predeposit requirements have been fulfilled, and considered the oversight in reporting compliance as a valid reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal.