2012 (12) TMI 303 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay delay of 261 days Held that - Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few - no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates Department failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay - application for condonation of delay is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal and condonation of delay.
2. Explanation of delay and sufficiency of cause.
3. Applicability of legal precedents.
4. Conduct of the applicant and its impact on the case.
5. Interpretation of Section 35 for condonation of delay.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought restoration of their appeal, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. They explained the delay of 261 days, attributing it to their company's situation and legal consultations. The Tribunal considered the circumstances beyond the applicant's control and cited the purpose of limitation rules not to destroy rights but to prevent dilatory tactics. Reference was made to the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji emphasizing the importance of prompt remedies.

2. The Department argued the delay was 170 days, questioning the applicant's failure to explain specific periods of delay. They highlighted the applicant's awareness of the case and legal advice received, indicating a lack of sufficient cause for the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., the Department stressed the need to consider the applicant's conduct in assessing the condonation of delay under Section 35B.

3. The applicant's advocate referenced the State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani decision, while the Department distinguished it with the Living Media India Ltd. case. The Tribunal aligned with the latter, emphasizing the importance of justifying delays and the applicant's failure to do so. The Supreme Court's stance on condonation of delay for government bodies was reiterated, emphasizing the need for diligence and commitment.

4. The Tribunal noted the applicant's inability to explain specific periods of delay, emphasizing the requirement of showing sufficient cause for condonation under Section 35B. Despite the applicant's reliance on legal precedents, the Tribunal found their explanations lacking, leading to the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay and consequently, the appeal itself.

5. In interpreting Section 35 for condonation of delay, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of demonstrating sufficient cause. The Tribunal aligned with the Supreme Court's stance on not mechanically condoning delays, especially for government bodies, stressing the need for a reasonable and acceptable explanation for delays. The applicant's failure to provide such justification led to the dismissal of their appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal precedents, and the Tribunal's interpretation of the law regarding the restoration of appeal and condonation of delay in this case.