2014 (11) TMI 780 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Copy of order lost in office - Delay caused in obtaining duplicate copy of the order - Held that - Petitioner had shown sufficient cause for not being able to prefer appeal within the time permitted. It is a case where, if the petition is not entertained, great injustice would cause to the petitioner. - Delay condoned - Matter restored before before the adjudicating authority who may dispose of the same in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to Order-in-Original dated 30-9-2010 by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax - Excisability of pharmaceutical drugs manufactured on loan licenses - Location of the unit in a rural area - Extension of limitation period for appeal - Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original dated 30-9-2010 regarding excisability of pharmaceutical drugs manufactured on loan licenses and the location of the unit in a rural area. The Adjudicating Authority ruled against the petitioner on both issues, leading to subsequent appeals by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner faced challenges due to the loss of the copy of the order in the office, resulting in delayed appeal filing. The Appellate Commissioner and Tribunal dismissed the appeals citing jurisdictional limitations on extending the appeal period beyond 30 days. The petitioner then approached the High Court challenging the original order and the limitation issue.

3. The High Court acknowledged statutory provisions limiting the extension of appeal periods and the Commissioner's discretion in entertaining appeals. The court noted the petitioner's consistent appeal filing history and the exceptional circumstance of the lost order copy. However, the court emphasized that the Commissioner acted within the legal framework in not entertaining the appeal due to the delay.

4. Referring to a previous court decision, the High Court recognized the possibility of invoking writ jurisdiction in extraordinary cases where gross injustice is evident due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. In this case, the petitioner demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, highlighting the potential injustice if the petition was not entertained.

5. The High Court found in favor of the petitioner, noting that the issues were supported by decisions of the Appellate Commissioner and Tribunal, which were not considered by the Adjudicating Authority. The court emphasized the need for a fair hearing and directed the matter to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority, quashing the original order for a fresh disposal after allowing the petitioner to present all relevant materials.

6. In conclusion, the High Court granted relief to the petitioner by setting aside the Order-in-Original and ordering a fresh adjudication with the opportunity for the petitioner to present their case fully. The judgment highlighted the importance of fairness and adherence to legal procedures in resolving the issues raised by the petitioner.