1996 (2) TMI 141 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal dismissed due to delay in filing, Interpretation of statutory provision, Service of orders, Barred by limitation under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Rebuttal of presumption of service.

Analysis:

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam considered two petitions where the appeals before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal were dismissed due to being filed after the statutory time limit prescribed by Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the significance of timely filing of appeals to avoid unjust outcomes. The Court referred to previous decisions, including one by the Supreme Court, highlighting the need to balance procedural rules with the administration of justice.

The Court acknowledged the arguments presented by the respondents' counsel in support of the impugned orders but stressed the need to prevent meritorious matters from being dismissed due to procedural delays. It emphasized that the law of limitation and procedure serve crucial functions in ensuring a fair and efficient judicial process. The Court underscored the importance of balancing technical considerations with the overarching goal of achieving substantial justice.

In analyzing the issue of service of orders, the Court noted discrepancies in the delivery of the orders to the petitioner-appellant. Despite the Department's assertion that the orders were dispatched and delivered on a specific date, evidence suggested otherwise. The Court highlighted the lack of conclusive proof of service, particularly due to the incorrect delivery of the orders to a different entity. This raised doubts regarding the presumption of service and warranted further examination.

Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing respondent No. 2 to address specific questions of law related to the timeliness of the appeals and the rebuttal of the presumption of service. The Court's decision underscored the need for a just and pragmatic approach in legal proceedings, ensuring that technicalities do not overshadow the pursuit of justice. The order was to be communicated to the relevant appellate tribunal for further action in light of the Court's findings.