2014 (11) TMI 575 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant could make out a case for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal when the order was not served upon the appellant, it was served to an ex-employee of the appellant, thereafter the appellant was prevented to file appeal within time and it was sufficient cause for condonation of delay - Held that - appellant had not stated all the facts in the application seeking condonation of delay about the documentary evidence filed along with the application, though appellant ought to have been pleaded these facts in the application itself. But after perusal of the application, affidavit of Gulab Mewade and medical papers of Dinesh K. Agrawal, we find that a sufficient cause was made out by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the respondent. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing appeal before the respondent. appellant is permitted to deposit the entire amount of duty of Central Excise ₹ 2,98,195 with the respondent within a period of four weeks - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to non-receipt of order by the appellant.

Analysis:
The appeal involved the question of condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal. The appellant claimed that the order was not served on them but on an ex-employee, causing a delay in filing the appeal. The appellant contended that the authorized signatory was sick during the relevant time, preventing timely filing. The respondent rejected the application for condonation of delay, leading to subsequent appeals. The appellant argued that sufficient cause existed for condonation of delay due to the unique circumstances of the case.

The appellant submitted that the order was not properly served, and the delay was beyond their control due to the sickness of the authorized signatory. Medical papers supporting the signatory's illness were filed, along with an affidavit from the ex-employee who received the order. The respondent, however, opposed these contentions, stating that the application lacked necessary details despite supporting documents. The respondent argued against the merit of the appeal and requested its dismissal. The appellant offered to deposit the entire duty amount and penalty within a specified period to proceed with the appeal on its merits.

The court examined the application for condonation of delay, where the appellant detailed the challenges faced in receiving the order promptly. The appellant's affidavit and medical certificate supported their claim of a valid reason for the delay. Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was referenced, allowing for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The court emphasized a liberal interpretation of such provisions to ensure justice is not obstructed by technicalities. Referring to previous judgments, the court highlighted the importance of removing injustice rather than legalizing it on technical grounds.

After evaluating the facts and documents presented, the court found that the appellant had established a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Despite the incomplete details in the initial application, the court considered the overall circumstances and decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The court allowed the appeal with specified directions, including the deposit of the duty amount and additional costs within a set period for further proceedings on the appeal's merits.