2023 (7) TMI 634 - HC - Central Excise

Seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal - Condonation of delay was sought on the premises that the appellant- Tasleem Ahmed was not aware of the passing of the order dated 30.06.2017, since he had resigned from the Directorship of the Company in July, 2014 - HELD THAT - The appellant submits that he had not preferred the earlier appeal, since he had not signed either the memo of the appeal, or the Vakalatnama - there are no merit in this submission, for the reason, that when the appellant was granted the opportunity to file an affidavit to explain the position as to how the earlier appeal had been preferred, he failed to do so. It is obvious that the counsel had preferred the earlier appeal upon instructions of the appellant, as no counsel would, on his own file an appeal or other proceedings before any Court or Tribunal, without receiving instructions, including the fees therefor. The appellant has got away very lightly with the imposition of costs of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs. In fact, it was a fit case for initiation of proceedings for perjury against the appellant. However, since the Tribunal has chosen not to take steps, we say no further in that regard. The appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited with the Uttarakhand Legal Services Authority within two weeks.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the condonation of delay in filing an appeal, abuse of process by the appellant, imposition of costs, and failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for filing a fresh appeal after a previous dismissal.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, stating that he was unaware of the order due to resigning from the company. The appellant claimed to have filed the appeal promptly upon learning of the order. However, it was revealed that the appellant had previously filed an appeal which was dismissed for failure to deposit the required amount. The appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for filing a fresh appeal after the earlier dismissal. The Tribunal found that the appellant had abused the process and dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay along with the appeal, imposing costs of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs.

Abuse of Process:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had failed to appear and provide a proper affidavit explaining the circumstances of the earlier dismissed appeal. The appellant's argument that he did not sign the necessary documents for the previous appeal was deemed meritless. The Tribunal found that the counsel representing the appellant in both appeals had likely acted upon the appellant's instructions. The Tribunal stated that the appellant had gotten off lightly with the imposition of costs and suggested that perjury proceedings could have been initiated. However, since the Tribunal chose not to take further action, the matter was not pursued.

Imposition of Costs:
The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application for restoration of the appeal and subsequent applications. The appellant was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs, which the Tribunal deemed a lenient penalty considering the circumstances. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 50,000/- with the Uttarakhand Legal Services Authority within two weeks.

Final Decision:
The High Court dismissed the appeal with the observations that the appellant had abused the process and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the actions taken. The Court upheld the imposition of costs and directed the appellant to deposit the specified amount within the given timeframe. The Court did not delve into the aspect of delay, as the appeal was examined on its merits. Any pending applications were also disposed of in light of the judgment.