2001 (4) TMI 310 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) leading to its rejection.
2. Consideration of sufficient grounds for condoning the delay.
3. Application for early hearing of the appeal and remand of the matter for de novo consideration.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to a delay of 10 days in filing it. The appellants' Counsel explained the delay by citing personal reasons, including his ill-health and the death of his father. The Counsel argued that the delay was unintentional and should be condoned based on various judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mst Katiji. The Counsel prayed for setting aside the order and remand of the matter for de novo consideration on merits.

2. The learned DR supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to reject the appeal based on the delay. However, the Tribunal found that the reasons given by the Commissioner (Appeals) were insufficient to dismiss the appeal, especially in light of legal precedents. The Tribunal referred to the Allahabad High Court's decision in Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. U.O.I., which accepted the Advocate's illness as a valid reason for condoning delay. Considering the trauma faced by the Counsel and the marginal nature of the delay, the Tribunal concluded that the delay should have been condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals) to prevent a failure of justice.

3. The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application for early hearing of the appeal and decided to take up the matter for disposal. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits after granting the appellants an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of exercising discretionary powers to condone delays, especially in cases where the delay is marginal and genuine reasons are presented.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of delay in filing the appeal, the grounds for condoning the delay, and the decision to remand the matter for de novo consideration based on legal principles and precedents cited during the proceedings.