2021 (2) TMI 301 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - case of Revenue is that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal inasmuch as the appeal has been preferred regarding dismissal of a condonation application - HELD THAT - The Appellate Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in respect of the present appellant and also hear the appeal on merit rather than dismissing the application on the ground of delay. We have also gone through the cryptic order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay which does not appear to be supported by reasons. This, in our view, amounts to substantial question of law as far as this issue is concerned in this proceeding. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against dismissal of condonation application by Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Substantial question of law involved - Discrepancy in treatment of similar cases by the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the dismissal of a condonation application by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the condonation application filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent's counsel contending that there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal as it concerned the dismissal of a condonation application. However, the appellant's counsel argued that in a similar case, the Appellate Tribunal had admitted an appeal by condoning the delay, citing the case of M/s. Sarvopari Impex Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal had condoned the delay in the application filed by M/s. Sarvopari Impex Pvt. Ltd but had rejected the application filed by the present appellant based on almost similar grounds. The High Court, after examining both applications, concluded that the Appellate Tribunal should have condoned the delay for the present appellant as well and heard the appeal on merit rather than dismissing it solely on the ground of delay.

The High Court noted that the cryptic order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in dismissing the condonation application lacked supporting reasons, which, in the Court's view, raised a substantial question of law regarding the issue at hand. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the appeal on its merits. The judgment highlighted the importance of consistency and fair treatment in similar cases before the Tribunal and emphasized the need for reasoned decisions to address substantial questions of law effectively.