2014 (6) TMI 91 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Bar of limitation - whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the writ petitioner s appeal on the ground of limitation - Held that - the proper remedy of writ petitioner in this case was to file an appeal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise and Salt Act to this Court against the impugned order of the Tribunal rather than the writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution because the impugned order was appealable to this Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise and Salt Act - Tribunal should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the writ petitioner (appellant) instead of dismissing it on the ground of limitation. The delay in filing the appeal was hardly of 2 months and 19 days and keeping in view the ground stated in the present writ petition, we are inclined to hold that it constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the appeal beyond the statutory period prescribed for its filing - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Dismissal of appeal on the ground of limitation. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Signing of appeal by a staff member.

Dismissal of appeal on the ground of limitation:
The High Court considered whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the writ petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal as it was filed late without proper justification for the delay. The High Court observed that the delay in filing the appeal was only 2 months and 19 days. Referring to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court held that the delay constituted sufficient cause for condonation. The Court emphasized that condoning the delay advances the cause of justice and affords parties an opportunity to contest their case on merits. Quoting previous judgments, the Court highlighted the importance of ensuring substantial justice by allowing parties to be heard on the merits of the case. Consequently, the High Court decided to condone the delay, disagreeing with the Tribunal's reasoning.

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal:
The High Court, after examining the facts and grounds for condonation presented by the writ petitioner, concluded that the delay should have been condoned by the Tribunal. The Court applied the principle of natural justice and emphasized the need to provide parties with an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the case. Referring to previous legal observations, the Court held that declining to condone the delay would deprive parties of a fair hearing. Therefore, the High Court decided to condone the delay and allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and restoring the appeal to the Tribunal's file for a hearing on merits.

Signing of appeal by a staff member:
Regarding the issue of the appeal being signed by a staff member of the appellant, the High Court opined that this should not have been the basis for dismissing the appeal. The Court believed that the Tribunal could have granted an opportunity to rectify the defects instead of outright dismissal. The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's reasoning on this matter and held that the appeal should not have been dismissed on this ground. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the parties to appear before the Tribunal for the appeal to be heard on merits.

In conclusion, the High Court found that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. The Court emphasized the importance of condoning delays to ensure justice and held that the appeal should be heard on its merits. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the parties to appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings.