1991 (8) TMI 106 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeals before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeals under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Application of principles regarding "sufficient cause" for delay.
4. Judicial precedents on condonation of delay.
5. Discretion of the Tribunal in condoning delay.
6. Nature of the order passed by the Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The writ petition was filed to challenge an order by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which declined to condone the delay in filing appeals. The petitioner, a manufacturer of matches, had filed an appeal after a significant delay following a demand for differential duty. The Tribunal rejected the request for condonation, leading to the writ petition.

2. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to pursuing a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which was disposed of after a considerable period. The petitioner claimed that the delay constituted "sufficient cause" for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time under Section 35B(5) of the Act. The Department opposed the condonation, leading to the Tribunal's decision.

3. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal failed to apply proper principles in determining the existence of sufficient cause for the delay. The argument centered on whether there was bona fides or lack of bona fides in not presenting the appeal within the stipulated time, emphasizing a substantial miscarriage of justice due to the Tribunal's decision.

4. Judicial pronouncements cited by the petitioner highlighted the importance of bona fide actions leading to delays in filing appeals. Precedents cautioned against a rigid view and emphasized the need for a liberal approach to condone delays, ensuring substantial justice is served.

5. The High Court, after considering submissions from both sides, upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Court found that the delay was not sufficiently explained, especially after the disposal of the case by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's exercise of discretion in not condoning the delay was justified, given the circumstances of the case.

6. The respondents argued that the nature of the Tribunal's order should be deemed as disposing of the appeal itself, rendering the remedy before the High Court inapplicable. However, the Court did not delve into this aspect as it concurred with the Tribunal's decision on the absence of sufficient cause for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.