2012 (11) TMI 198 - AT - Central Excise

Time bar Condonation of delay - condonation of delay application requesting to condone the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) only indicate gross negligence on the part of the appellant and the reasons mentioned may not be accepted as sufficient and reasonable cause, declined to condone the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal and accordingly, rejected the appeal on time bar - Commissioner (Appeals) directed to condone the delay - order is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals)

Summary

Issues:
1. Time bar for filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved the issue of time bar for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that the appellant's appeal was rejected on the ground of time bar by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. The appellant had initially believed that the order of the Dy. Commissioner, passed in de novo proceedings after remand by the Tribunal, needed to be appealed before the Tribunal only. However, upon consulting their advocate, they were advised to file the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) instead. The Tribunal found the grounds for seeking condonation of delay to be reasonable and justifiable, stating that the appellant, not being legal experts, could have a bona fide doubt regarding the appropriate forum for appeal. The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) should be condoned and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal on merits, remanding the matter for this purpose.

The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's belief that the order of the Dy. Commissioner, issued as per the Tribunal's directions upon remand, should be challenged before the Tribunal itself was a valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal considered the appellant's lack of legal expertise and bona fide doubt as justifying factors for condoning the delay. It was observed that expecting the appellant to be well-versed in legal intricacies was unreasonable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanded the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits, and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for a decision on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals) was based on the understanding that the grounds for seeking condonation of delay were valid and the appellant's actions were justifiable given their circumstances.