2006 (11) TMI 229 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are condonation of delay in filing an appeal, interpretation of dates mentioned in an affidavit, and the power of the Tribunal to condone delay.

Condonation of Delay:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to challenge the dismissal of their application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The Tribunal had dismissed the application based on the dates mentioned in the affidavit, despite the petitioner's argument that it was a typographical error. The High Court accepted the petitioner's reasoning, noting that even responsible individuals can make mistakes, especially at the beginning of the year. The Court held that the Tribunal's refusal to consider the typographical error was legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, condoned the delay, and directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal on its merits.

Interpretation of Dates in Affidavit:
The Tribunal had rejected the petitioner's request to read the dates in the affidavit as 2005 instead of 2006, as suggested by the petitioner's counsel. However, the High Court accepted the petitioner's argument that the year mentioned in the dates was a typographical error. The Court held that in the absence of any other material to refute this claim, the Tribunal's strict approach was not legally justifiable. Therefore, the Court directed the Tribunal to consider the dates as 2005 instead of 2006, acknowledging the typographical error as a valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal.

Power of Tribunal to Condone Delay:
The High Court emphasized that the respondents had the power to condone the delay if the reason provided by the petitioner was satisfactory. The Court noted that it was within the Tribunal's authority to overlook typographical errors and condone delays, as long as the explanation was deemed acceptable. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, allowed the writ petition, and directed the Tribunal to proceed with hearing the appeal without imposing any costs.