2013 (3) TMI 341 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 364 days in filing of appeal - Held that - The explanation of the appellant for delay is that the Excise officer of the company misplaced the order-in-appeal and failed to inform about the same to responsible officer of the company. This explanation appears to be reasonable and it does not smack of mala fides or as a part of dilatory tactics. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the application allowed and delay condoned in filing of appeal.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal - Condonation of delay

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application seeking condonation of delay of 364 days in filing an appeal by M/s. Cosmos Casting India Ltd. The impugned order-in-appeal was passed on 23-5-2011, received by the Excise officer on 30-5-2011, and the appeal was filed on 28-8-2012. The appellant explained that the delay was due to the Excise officer misplacing the order and failing to inform the company. The appellant cited the Supreme Court judgment in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, emphasizing that the explanation for delay is crucial for condonation, not just the duration of delay. The Revenue opposed the application, arguing that since the order was received by the Excise officer, the delay was unjustified.

The Tribunal considered both arguments and referred to the Supreme Court judgment regarding the purpose of rules of limitation and the importance of balancing the rights of parties with the need for timely legal remedies. The Court highlighted that delay should not automatically be presumed deliberate and that "sufficient cause" for delay should be liberally construed to advance justice. The Court stressed that if the delay explanation is not mala fide or dilatory, utmost consideration should be given to the suitor. However, if the delay seems deliberate, the court should be cautious. The Court also emphasized compensating the opposite party for losses when condoning delay due to laches on the applicant's part.

In this case, the Tribunal found the appellant's explanation for the delay reasonable and not indicative of mala fides or dilatory tactics. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal allowed the application and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The case was listed for further argument and disposal, with directions to file a reply if necessary by a specified date.