2004 (9) TMI 130 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal dismissed on the ground of limitation - Condonation of delay - Contradictory stand taken before the Tribunal - Dismissal of appeal by the appellate Tribunal - Interference by the Court - Vigilance of the parties.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was dismissed as time-barred. The petitioners sought condonation of delay before the appellate Tribunal, claiming that similarly situated persons had succeeded in their appeals. However, the Tribunal noted contradictory statements made by the petitioners regarding their knowledge of the appeal requirement. The Tribunal found that there was no serious attempt to file the appeal within the stipulated time and no justifiable reasons were provided for the delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the appellate Tribunal.

The Court emphasized that the mere fact that appeals by others in similar situations were allowed did not warrant interference in the present case. It reiterated the principle that only vigilant parties can benefit from the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court. The Court held that lack of vigilance on the part of the petitioners was not a valid reason to overturn the appellate Tribunal's decision. Therefore, the petition was summarily dismissed, with notice discharged and no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of diligence and timely compliance with legal procedures. It highlights the significance of providing sufficient cause for condonation of delay and maintaining consistency in statements before the Tribunal. The Court's decision serves as a reminder that parties must be vigilant in pursuing their legal remedies to avail themselves of the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction.