2019 (8) TMI 205 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 1434 days in filing appeal - sub-section (3) of Section 35B of CEA - delay due to illness of concern persons and misplacement of paper due to loss of memory - HELD THAT - Though sub-section (3) of Section 35B prescribes a period of limitation of 3 months, sub-section (5) gives discretion for the Tribunal to condone the delay. No outer limit is prescribed, curtailing the power of the Tribunal to condone the delay beyond a period. We have gone through the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. We are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the appellant - the question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and the appeal is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The judgment addresses the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Assessee appealed against the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay by the CESTAT. The main question of law was whether the Tribunal was correct in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay in this case was significant, amounting to about 1434 days. The Tribunal has the discretion to condone the delay under sub-section (5) of Section 35B, without any specific outer limit prescribed. The judgment highlights that in a similar case involving the same Assessee, the delay was condoned by another Bench of the Tribunal, even though the reasons and period of delay were similar.

2. Judicial Review and Discretion of the Tribunal:
The judgment emphasizes the judicial review of the Tribunal's decision regarding the condonation of delay. The High Court examined the affidavit submitted in support of the application for condonation of delay and concluded that there was sufficient cause for the delay. The Court exercised its discretion in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and condoning the delay. This analysis showcases the role of the judiciary in reviewing administrative decisions and ensuring fairness in the application of legal provisions.

3. Remedial Action and Disposition:
In response to the findings, the High Court directed the Tribunal to number the appeal and proceed with its disposal on merits. The judgment explicitly states that there shall be no order as to costs, indicating a straightforward resolution of the issue without imposing any financial burden on either party. Additionally, the judgment mentions the closure of pending miscellaneous petitions as a consequential action following the decision on the main issue of condonation of delay.

In conclusion, the judgment by the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh highlights the importance of judicial review in matters of condonation of delay, upholding the principles of fairness and justice in legal proceedings. The detailed analysis provides clarity on the legal provisions, judicial discretion, and the remedial actions taken to address the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.