2002 (2) TMI 257 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act.
3. Examination of the High Court's directive on condonation of delay.
4. Discrepancies in the filing dates and required documentation.
5. Judicial discipline and procedural propriety in handling the condonation application.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Condonation of Delay:
The appellants filed an application for condonation of delay, citing that they had initially filed a Writ Petition and Writ Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Chennai, which caused a delay of more than six years in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The High Court directed the Tribunal to condone the delay by applying Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, deducting the time spent on the writ petitions.

2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act:
The High Court's order emphasized that the Tribunal should entertain the appeal by applying Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in bona fide proceedings in a court without jurisdiction. The Tribunal was instructed to deduct the period consumed in filing the writ petitions up to the date of the High Court's order.

3. Examination of the High Court's Directive:
The Tribunal members had differing views on the application of the High Court's directive. One member (J) allowed the condonation application based on the High Court's directive, while another member (T) argued that the High Court had not condoned the entire delay but only directed the application of Section 14. The latter member insisted on a detailed examination of the time consumed in the writ proceedings, which the appellants had not fully disclosed.

4. Discrepancies in Filing Dates and Required Documentation:
The appellants failed to provide a complete time chart showing the dates of filing the writ petitions and other relevant details necessary to apply Section 14 of the Limitation Act. This lack of information led to a disagreement between the Tribunal members on whether the entire delay could be condoned without a thorough examination of the time consumed in the writ proceedings.

5. Judicial Discipline and Procedural Propriety:
The issue of judicial discipline and procedural propriety was raised when one member (T) suggested recalling the order dictated in open court by another member (J). The dissenting member (T) argued that the order was not discussed threadbare and that vital facts were suppressed by the appellants. The member (J) countered that the order was based on the High Court's clear directive and that recalling the order would be inappropriate.

Majority Order:
Justice K.K. Usha, the third member on reference, concluded that the writ petitions were filed within three months from the receipt of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Given the High Court's peremptory directive to condone the delay by applying Section 14, the Tribunal was bound to allow the condonation application. Consequently, the majority opinion held that the delay in filing the appeal was to be condoned, and the application for condonation of delay was allowed. The appeal was directed to come up in its turn.