1998 (3) TMI 422 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal seeking condonation of the delay; Admissibility of refund claim on short receipt of goods; Bonafide pursuit of remedy in a wrong forum; Condonation of delay in filing appeal.

Analysis:
The subject application before the Appellate Tribunal sought condonation of a 430-day delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order, received by the applicants on 6-5-1992, concerned the admissibility of a refund claim due to short receipt of goods. The applicants had initially filed a Revision Application before the Government of India, which was rejected as not maintainable on 27-8-1993. Subsequently, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 11-10-1993, within 27 days of receiving the order from the Government.

The appellant's counsel argued that the delay was due to following the remedy against the impugned order on the advice of a regular Counsel, citing relevant case laws. The delay of 4 days in filing the Revision Application was attributed to the advocate's inability to locate necessary papers, while the subsequent 26-day delay was explained as consultation with the advocate at Delhi and preparation of the appeal. The counsel contended that the delay was reasonable given the circumstances and prayed for the application to be allowed.

On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the delay in filing the Revision Application itself by 4 days indicated lack of bonafide pursuit of remedy in a wrong forum. Additionally, the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal after receiving the Government's order was considered excessive. The Respondent relied on precedents to support the contention that delays beyond a certain period should not be condoned, especially when the correct forum for appeal was clearly indicated in the impugned order.

After considering both parties' arguments, the Tribunal held that the applicants had pursued the remedy before a wrong forum bonafidely based on legal advice. The Tribunal also found the 26-day delay in filing the appeal reasonable, given the circumstances. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application and condoned the delay in presenting the appeal, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.

This judgment underscores the importance of bonafide pursuit of remedies and the reasonableness of delays in legal proceedings. It also highlights the Tribunal's discretion in condoning delays based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach in such matters.