2011 (3) TMI 686 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - The delay in this case is 133 days, and nothing has been disclosed as to where the delay occurred in taking the decision to file appeal - The only reason given was that the delay occurred inadvertently - Held that - merely because appeal is pending for subsequent year cannot be a ground for condonation of delay - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the tribunal.
2. Application of Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in cases of refund of MODVAT credit.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise approached the Madras High Court seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The appeal was barred by 133 days, with the only ground for condonation of delay being inadvertence in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, held that inadvertent delay without sufficient cause cannot be a ground for condonation. It was emphasized that while courts may be liberal in condoning delays in cases by government departments, an explanation establishing sufficient cause is necessary.

2. The delay of 133 days was deemed unjustified as no specific reason or explanation was provided regarding where the delay occurred in deciding to file the appeal. The petitioner argued that a pending matter before the court should condone the delay, citing a direction from a Division Bench to frame specific questions for adjudication. However, the court held that the pendency of another matter does not justify interference with the Tribunal's order. It was clarified that when the Tribunal has jurisdiction and dismisses an appeal as time-barred, the mere pendency of a subsequent appeal cannot be a valid reason for condonation of delay.

In conclusion, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it without costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed. The judgment underscores the importance of providing a valid explanation for delay in filing appeals and highlights that the pendency of other matters does not automatically warrant condonation of delay in the absence of sufficient cause.