2012 (8) TMI 378 - AT - Central Excise

Plea for condonation of delay of 29 days - delay occurred due to accident of accountant dealing with the matter who got bed-ridden for almost 3 months - Held that - Explanation given by the appellant for delay in filing of the appeal is satisfactory and Commissioner (Appeals) should have accepted the same, more so because of the fact the medical certificate of Accountant was also produced. It is well settled that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay, the Courts/Tribunal should take liberal view and ordinarily the doors of justice should not be shut to a party on technical ground of limitation. Delay condoned - Decided in favor of assessee.

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
2. Application under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking waiver of pre-deposit.
3. Interpretation of the Proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Consideration of medical certificate as evidence for condonation of delay.
5. Legal principles governing the condonation of delay in filing appeals.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal
The appeal was filed after the expiration of the 60-day limitation period. The appellant provided an explanation for the delay, citing the Accountant's accident as the reason for not filing the appeal on time. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the plea for condonation of delay, noting that the appeal paper was signed by a different representative, not the Accountant who was allegedly incapacitated. The Tribunal found the appellant's explanation satisfactory, especially considering that a medical certificate for the Accountant was produced. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays and overturned the Commissioner's decision, remanding the matter for further consideration.

Issue 2: Application under Section 35 seeking waiver of pre-deposit
The appellant also moved an application under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking waiver of the pre-deposit of duty demand, interest, and penalty. The Tribunal, in light of the delay issue, waived the pre-deposit condition and proceeded to hear arguments on the appeal itself.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the Proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944
The Proviso to Section 35(1) empowers the Commissioner to extend the period for filing an appeal beyond the initial 60 days if a reasonable explanation for the delay is provided. In this case, the Tribunal found the appellant's explanation satisfactory and criticized the Commissioner for not accepting it.

Issue 4: Consideration of medical certificate as evidence for condonation of delay
The Tribunal considered the medical certificate of the Accountant, who was involved in the accident, as supporting evidence for the delay in filing the appeal. This certificate played a crucial role in establishing the reason behind the delay and supporting the appellant's case for condonation.

Issue 5: Legal principles governing the condonation of delay in filing appeals
The Tribunal reiterated the principle that courts and tribunals should adopt a liberal view when considering applications for condonation of delay. It emphasized that justice should not be denied to a party based solely on technical grounds such as limitation. This principle guided the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay in this case and remand the matter for further proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals).

← Previous Next →