1993 (2) TMI 113 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Justification for delay in filing the appeal.
3. Tribunal's authority to condone delay under Section 35B(5) of Central Excises and Salt Act.
4. Disposal of appeal on merits despite delay.

Detailed Analysis:
The writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras involved a challenge to the order of the first respondent Tribunal, which dismissed an appeal due to an 18-month delay in filing. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order and direct a disposal of the appeal on merits. The case stemmed from irregularities found during an inspection by Central Excise officers, leading to a show cause notice for confiscation of unaccounted tea, demand of differential duty, and imposition of penalty. The petitioner's appeal to the Tribunal was delayed due to alleged family problems and illness of a consultant. Despite no stay obtained, the petitioner filed a writ to halt duty and penalty collection pending appeal, which was dismissed, leading to the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal for delay.

The petitioner argued that the Tribunal should have considered the appeal on merits despite the delay, emphasizing the strength of the case. However, the respondents contended that Section 35B(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act mandates a three-month appeal filing period, with provision for condoning delays under Section 35B(5) upon showing sufficient cause. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal for unexplained delay was in accordance with the Act's provisions. The Court rejected the petitioner's assertion that a strong case on merits should override the delay, stating that negligence or failure to take necessary steps cannot constitute sufficient cause under the law.

Ultimately, the Court held that the Tribunal's decision was valid, as no sufficient cause was demonstrated for the delay in filing the appeal. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions, specifically Sections 35B(3) and 35B(5) of the Act. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs, affirming the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal due to the unexplained delay.