2000 (11) TMI 376 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal due to illness of Dealing Assistant leading to resignation and subsequent delay in handing over papers, request for condonation of delay, arguments for and against condonation based on procedural lapses and strong case on merits.

Analysis:
The case involved a Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal by about 132 days. The delay was attributed to the illness of the Dealing Assistant of the appellant company, which eventually led to the assistant's resignation. The appellant's Advocate argued that the delay was unintentional and that the appellant had a strong case on merits regarding the disallowance of Modvat credit due to procedural lapses. The Advocate cited relevant legal precedents to support the request for condonation based on the strength of the case. On the other hand, the Revenue opposed the prayer for condonation, arguing that the appellant failed to explain the delay adequately and displayed a casual approach. The Revenue referred to a previous Tribunal decision where delay was condoned due to lost papers, highlighting the differences in the present case.

Upon hearing both sides, the Judge considered the explanations provided. The applicant admitted the delay and explained it as a result of the Dealing Assistant's absence until resignation in June 2000. Additionally, the retainer of the company had undergone a heart operation, causing further delay. While no documentary evidence was presented regarding the retainer's health, the Judge accepted the oral submission as true. The Judge found that the appellant had a prima facie case in their favor on merits, especially concerning the denial of Modvat credit due to procedural lapses. Denying condonation of delay would have amounted to a denial of justice, considering the strong case on merits. Consequently, the Judge granted the prayer for condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of ensuring justice in such circumstances.