2021 (7) TMI 30 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient explanation for delay not provided - fault due to counsel of appellant - HELD THAT - It is apparent from a reading of the delay condonation application that only casual statements have been made without any details or supporting documents. According to the Appellant, an accountant had been entrusted to file the appeal but since he had suddenly gone on leave, a new counsel was consulted. The Appellant has not stated as to how the Appellant acquired knowledge that the accountant had not filed an appeal. The Appellant has also not stated on which date the Appellant acquired knowledge that the appeal had not been filed by the accountant. The delay in preferring legal remedies though is inexcusable without sufficient reasons, yet it is also a settled principle of law that normally a litigant must not be made to suffer for the fault of his counsel - delay in filing the appeal is condoned by imposing cost of ₹ 10,000/- to be deposited with the M.P.State Legal Services Authority and remit the matter back to Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal on merits. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay.
- Principle that a litigant should not suffer due to counsel's fault.
- Setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Tribunal.

Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay:
The appeal in question arose from an order dated 3.3.2020, challenged by the Appellant who is engaged in construction work. The Appellant faced queries from the Respondent-Department, leading to a Show Cause Notice. The Appellant approached the Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal with Service Tax Appeal No.52782/2019, which suffered a delay of 180 days. An Application for Condonation of Delay was submitted along with the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the lack of representation from the Appellant and inadequacy in the details provided in the condonation application. The Tribunal was not convinced by the reasons presented by the Appellant for the delay.

Principle that a litigant should not suffer due to counsel's fault:
The High Court emphasized that while delay in legal remedies is generally inexcusable without valid reasons, the litigant should not bear the consequences of counsel's errors. In this case, the Court noted that the counsel for the Appellant failed to appear before the Tribunal, affecting the presentation of the Application for Condonation of Delay. Following the principle that litigants should not be penalized for their counsel's mistakes, the Court decided to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay by imposing a cost of ?10,000 to be deposited with the M.P. State Legal Services Authority.

Setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Tribunal:
The High Court ultimately set aside the order dated 3.3.2020 and directed the Appellant to deposit the prescribed cost within fifteen days. The matter was remitted back to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for a decision on the merits of Service Tax Appeal No.52782/2019 according to the law. The Court clarified that the Tribunal should independently evaluate the appeal without being influenced by the observations made in the High Court's order. The Central Excise Appeal was disposed of with these directions.