9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay
Issue 1: Delay in filing appeal The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by respondent No. 1, which refused to condone the delay of approximately 21 months in filing an appeal against an earlier order. The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, started paying Central Excise Duty in August 1997 under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. A dispute arose regarding the capacity of the unit after the introduction of a compound levy scheme. The Commissioner determined the production capacity of the unit, including the value of waste and scraps, which the petitioner objected to. The objections were not accepted, and subsequent representations were also rejected. The petitioner was advised to file an appeal against the order dated 30th of March, 1998, which was done with a delay of about 21 months. Analysis: The Court considered the delay in filing the appeal and referred to the Supreme Court's stance that in such cases, the approach should be justice-oriented, and the delay should be condoned. The Court emphasized that the term 'sufficient cause' is flexible, and by condoning the delay, the case can be adjudicated on its merits, satisfying both parties. Citing previous judgments, the Court highlighted the importance of hearing and deciding cases on their merits. In this case, the Court found that the delay should have been condoned based on the facts and circumstances presented. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The respondent No. 1 was directed to hear and decide the appeal on its merits. Conclusion: The High Court, in its judgment, emphasized the need to consider the circumstances of each case when deciding on the condonation of delay in filing appeals. By aligning with the principles of justice and ensuring cases are adjudicated on their merits, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the earlier order and allowing for the appeal to be heard on its substantive grounds.
|
