2014 (5) TMI 717 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Bar of limitation - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal used its judicial discretion in the interest of justice while deciding the sufficient cause in the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant - Held that - Appeal Memorandum and related documents also contain the name of M/s. Global Overseas as the appellant. However, the order copy was forwarded to M/s. Global Services. File contains the returned postal cover. It also contains the address and it is seen that the cover was addressed to M/s. Global Services. The returned cover contains correction, whereby and whereunder, M/s. Global Services was corrected as M/s. Global Overseas . This appears to be a subsequent correction, more particularly after the return of the cover. This aspect was not considered by the Tribunal. The very fact that the postal cover was sent to M/s. Global Services instead of M/s. Global Overseas itself supports the case of the appellant that they have not received the copy of the order within the statutory period so as to enable them to file the appeal before the Tribunal. - Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation - Matter remitted back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal rejection on the ground of delay due to change of address not reported to the Commissioner of Central Excise leading to non-receipt of order copy within statutory period.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the rejection of an appeal by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on the grounds of delay. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing cotton-made articles, faced a notice from the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise in 2005 regarding a shortage in stock, leading to a fine and penalty. Despite explanations, the Original Authority passed an adverse order in 2007, which was further upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise in 2009, prompting the appellant to approach the Tribunal with a delay condonation application.

The Tribunal rejected the appeal as time-barred, citing the appellant's failure to report a change of address to the Commissioner of Central Excise. The High Court, after hearing both parties, delved into the records and discovered discrepancies in the address details. The order copy was mistakenly sent to a different company, which was later corrected to the appellant's correct address. The Court noted that the Tribunal overlooked this crucial correction, highlighting the appellant's genuine doubt regarding the dispatch of the order.

The High Court opined that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the appeal solely based on the change of address issue and failing to consider the subsequent correction in the postal cover. By not exercising judicial discretion properly concerning the term "sufficient cause," the Tribunal's decision was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Tribunal's order, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Tribunal to decide the appeal on its merits and as per the law.

In conclusion, the civil miscellaneous appeal was allowed without costs, and the related miscellaneous petition was closed. The judgment emphasizes the importance of judicial discretion and adherence to legal principles while considering delay condonation applications and addresses the significance of ensuring proper service of orders to parties involved in legal proceedings.