2013 (12) TMI 879 - HC - Central Excise

Application for condonation of delay rejected Compliance of Section 35(B)(5) of Central excise act Appellant contended that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration subsection 5 of Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act which empowers the learned Tribunal to condone the delay Held that - It is not as if the appellants were not doing anything in the matter and have not taken any steps for filing the appeal - The delay has occasioned on account of the procedural aspects - After the Commissioner of Goa decided to accept the order, the matter was required to be sent to the Commissioner of Belgaum who was another member of the Committee - the Commissioner of Belgaum had proceeded on leave and the additional charge was given to the Commissioner of Mangaluru, the file was required to be sent to the Commissioner of Mangaluru - it would be in the interest of justice to condone the delay - Instead of non suiting the appellant on the technical ground, it would be appropriate that the dispute between the parties is decided on merits Delay condoned Decided in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an appeal challenging the rejection of an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The substantial question of law was whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay overlooking the provisions of sub-section 5 of Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act. The Assistant Solicitor General for the appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the empowering provision for condonation of delay and that a sufficient case was made out. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that no explanation for the delay was provided and hence no interference was warranted.

The Court examined the grounds for seeking condonation of delay. It was revealed that the delay was due to procedural aspects involving different Commissioners and their opinions. The file had to be passed between Commissioners due to differences in views, causing delays. The Court noted that the delay was not due to inaction by the appellants but was a result of the procedural complexities involved. The Court found it just to condone the delay to ensure the dispute between the parties is decided on merits. The Court also addressed the prejudice caused to the respondent by awarding costs to the appellant as compensation.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order, and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, the appellant was directed to pay costs amounting to Rs.25,000 to the respondent as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal. The judgment emphasized deciding the dispute on its merits rather than technical grounds and ensuring justice is served by compensating the respondent for any prejudice caused.