1997 (3) TMI 244 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, pre-deposit of demanded amount

Analysis:
The case involved a prayer for dispensation of pre-deposit of an amount demanded from the appellant due to irregular Modvat credit. The appellant, represented by Shri Raghavan, Advocate, pleaded a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal, attributing it to the death of the consultant's sister. The appellant argued that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and requested condonation of the delay based on previous court decisions allowing delays for bona fide reasons. On the other hand, the department, represented by Shri S. Arulswamy, opposed condonation of the delay, adopting the reasoning of the lower authority.

The Learned lower appellate authority had initially dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, citing the death of the consultant's sister and the absence of the company's director as reasons for the delay. The authority held that the delay was not convincingly explained and that the appellant, being a limited company, should have exercised due caution in adhering to statutory time limits. The authority relied on a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that negligence and lack of bona fide reasons are not grounds for condoning a time-barred appeal.

However, upon review, the appellate tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument. The tribunal noted that the consultant had been entrusted with the appeal papers and had to suddenly leave town due to his sister's illness and subsequent death. The tribunal observed that the circumstances presented by the appellant indicated genuine reasons for the delay, as the consultant did not have time to hand over the papers before leaving. The tribunal emphasized that in cases of genuine unavoidable circumstances, a liberal view should be taken. Therefore, the tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was condonable due to bona fide reasons and overturned the lower authority's decision. The tribunal ordered dispensation of the pre-deposit amount, set aside the lower authority's order, and remanded the case for de novo adjudication after providing the appellants with a personal hearing on merits.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal by remand, highlighting the importance of considering genuine reasons for delays in filing appeals and the need for a liberal view in cases of unavoidable circumstances.