2012 (4) TMI 179 - AT - Central Excise

Delay of one day in filing the appeal before Commissioner(Appeals) delay on medical grounds - Held that - It is found that Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal u/s 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944, for delay of one day in filing the appeal, without granting hearing to the applicant. Thus, after waiving the requirement of pre - deposit, delay of one day is condoned and matter is remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the Stay Petition as well as Appeal on merit.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) due to unavoidable circumstances.
3. Dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) without granting a hearing.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought waiver of predeposit of duty amounting to Rs.2,96,498/- and an equal penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, decided to dispose of the appeal at that stage by waiving the predeposit requirement with the consent of both parties.

2. The applicant contended that there was a delay of one day in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the unavailability of Shri Goutam Saha, the Director of the Company, who was attending to his sick mother and could not sign the appeal papers in time. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal without granting a hearing based on this delay. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, condoned the one-day delay and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the Stay Petition and Appeal on merit, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing for both sides.

3. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, solely due to the one-day delay in filing, without providing an opportunity for the applicant to present their case. In light of this, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by way of remand, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on the Stay Petition and Appeal after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties. The Stay petition was also disposed of in this process.

This judgment highlights the importance of considering genuine reasons for delays in legal proceedings and ensuring that parties are given a fair chance to present their case before decisions are made, as demonstrated by the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for a fresh consideration with proper hearing procedures.