2004 (9) TMI 128 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to impugned order dismissing application for condonation of delay by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Consideration of medical certificates as explanation for delay - Legal principles governing condonation of delay in appeals.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai, which refused to condone a delay of 84 days in Appeal No. F/814/04. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, stating that the delay was not sufficiently explained. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the sole proprietor's medical condition, supported by medical certificates, advising complete bed rest. The Tribunal's rejection of the medical certificates was criticized as erroneous, especially considering the proprietor's health condition. The petitioner relied on the case law of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, where the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations in condoning delays to prevent meritorious matters from being dismissed unfairly.

In the judgment, it was highlighted that the decision to condone or not condone a delay depends on the specific facts of each case. The High Court found that the petitioner had adequately explained the 84-day delay with authentic medical evidence, indicating that the Tribunal should have accepted the explanation and proceeded with the appeal. The opposition to condonation of delay by the Department's representative was noted with regret. The Court reiterated that the grounds cited by the Tribunal for not condoning the delay were improper and legally flawed.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the Tribunal's order dismissing the application for condonation of delay, and directed the Tribunal to consider the main appeal along with the stay application and decide the matter in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded due to the peculiar circumstances of the case. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantial justice and the judiciary's role in rectifying injustices rather than upholding technicalities.