2014 (6) TMI 722 - HC - Central Excise

Condontaion of delay - Person attending legal matters remained absent from office - Held that - Tribunal has termed the explanation offered by the Appellant as casual - The Tribunal, in our opinion, has taken a hyper technical view of the matter. It does not hold that the explanation given is false or that the conduct of the Appellants is such that they were utterly negligent, careless and acted malafide, then, there was no need to take such a view. In fact, liberal principles ought to have been applied and delay deserved to be condoned with a appropriate direction of payment of costs so as to compensate the Respondent and balance the rights and equities. Once the explanation given is found to be genuine and not false, then, holding that the delay does not deserve to be condoned because the Appeal was not filed immediately after resumption of duty by Mr. Sanjay Tope or after deposit of the demanded amount, was not in accordance with law. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained - Delay condoned with order of costs to be borne by assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Delay in filing statutory appeal, condonation of delay, application for condonation of delay, exercise of discretion by the Tribunal, principles of condonation, costs to be paid by the Appellants.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against the Tribunal Revenue's order refusing to condone a delay of 76 days in filing a statutory appeal. The Appellants filed an appeal challenging an order by the Adjudicating Authority, which was filed beyond the stipulated period, being 76 days late. The explanation provided for the delay was the illness of the Office Superintendent, causing a delay in attending to the matter. The Appellants reported compliance with the order subject to their legal rights and contentions, claiming they acted bona fide without negligence. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the delay explanation was not acceptable, and the Tribunal exercised its discretion in accordance with the law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Upon reviewing the Tribunal's order and the application for condonation of delay, the High Court found the Tribunal's view to be hyper-technical. The Court observed that the Tribunal did not find the explanation false or the Appellants negligent or malafide. The Court believed that liberal principles should have been applied, condoning the delay with appropriate costs to balance the rights and equities. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal's decision not to condone the delay merely because the appeal was not filed immediately after the Office Superintendent resumed duty or after depositing the demanded amount. The Court held that the Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay, despite a genuine explanation and medical evidence, was not in accordance with law. Therefore, the Court quashed the impugned order, allowed the delay condonation application, and directed the Appellants to pay costs within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the need to apply liberal principles in condoning delays when genuine explanations are provided. The Court stressed the importance of balancing rights and equities, allowing parties to agitate their cases on merits if acting bona fide. The judgment highlights the significance of considering all circumstances and exercising discretion judiciously in matters of delay condonation in legal proceedings.