2006 (11) TMI 228 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Application of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act.
4. Tribunal's discretion in condoning delay.
5. Lack of sufficient cause for delay.

Analysis:

The writ petition was filed seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to challenge the Tribunal's order non-suiting the petitioner for failing to condone the delay in filing an appeal against the Commissioner of Central Excise's order. The petitioner did not provide any reason for the 100-day delay in filing the appeal. Section 35B of the Central Excise Act mandates that appeals must be filed within three months, with provision for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown.

The Tribunal, in its order, emphasized the importance of providing valid reasons for delay, citing previous case laws. Despite the Board's decision to file an appeal on a specific date, the actual appeal was submitted much later without any explanation for the delay. The Court noted that condonation of delay is not automatic and must be based on reasonable cause shown by the party seeking relief. The Tribunal's power to condone delay is not a mere formality, and without sufficient cause, delay cannot be condoned.

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that leniency is usually shown to the Revenue in such matters, emphasizing that a valid reason must be provided for any delay. The lack of effort by the authorities to explain the delay was highlighted as a crucial factor in the decision. The Court concluded that without a reasonable cause for the delay, the Tribunal was justified in non-suiting the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of providing sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, as mandated by the Central Excise Act. The decision reaffirms the principle that condonation of delay is not automatic and must be based on valid reasons presented by the party seeking relief.