2002 (12) TMI 90 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to legal advice and pending representations.

Analysis:
The petitioners, engaged in processing textile fabrics, filed an application seeking condonation of delay after their appeal was dismissed. The delay was attributed to the legal consultant's advice that the order in question was not appealable due to lack of preamble and breach of natural justice principles. The petitioners made representations to reconsider the decision, but no response was received. Despite this, the petitioners believed their representations were pending and did not challenge the order immediately. A refund application was also rejected, leading to subsequent appeals. The Tribunal rejected the condonation application, citing unsatisfactory explanation for the delay.

The High Court acknowledged that the delay should have been condoned. The legal consultant's advice, the pending representations, and the delayed response from the authorities contributed to the petitioners' belief that their representations would be considered. The Court noted that the delay was not solely the petitioners' fault, as the consultant's advice, coupled with the authorities' inaction on the representations, misled them. Considering these factors, the Court set aside the dismissal order, directed the Tribunal to restore the appeal, and emphasized that the delay should be condoned. The Court highlighted that all parties involved contributed to the delay, and the dismissal of the appeal was unjust given the circumstances.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the petition, ordering the restoration of the appeal without costs. The judgment emphasized the need to consider all factors contributing to the delay, including legal advice and pending representations, in condoning delays in filing appeals.