2015 (2) TMI 700 - HC - Central Excise

Delay in presenting the appeal - Sufficient cause - Condonation of delay - Held that - From a perusal of the documents available on record, it is clear that the delay of 29 days which has occurred is purely administrative in nature, as has been stated by the Department before the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause, which prevented them in filing the appeal, does not merit acceptance in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mst. Katiji & Ors. 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court , wherein the Supreme Court has held that the expression sufficient cause employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. Further, the Supreme Court also held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Guidelines to be provided while deciding matters relating to condonation of delay in judgment of supreme court in Esha Bhattacharjee 2015 (1) TMI 1053 - SUPREME COURT can be invoked for deciding the present appeal. Delay condoned. Decided in favour of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal; Condonation of delay; Consideration of sufficient cause for delay; Interpretation of settled law by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a petition for condonation of a 29-day delay in filing the appeal against the order of the original authority. The Department cited the pendency of similar matters before the Supreme Court as the reason for the delay. The Tribunal, however, relying on precedent, held that the reason for condonation of delay was not acceptable due to lack of sufficient cause preventing timely filing of the appeal. The appellant contested this decision, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.

2. The High Court examined the circumstances of the delay and observed that the delay was administrative in nature, as explained by the Department. Citing the decision of the Supreme Court in a related matter, the High Court emphasized the need for a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach in matters of condonation of delay. The Court highlighted that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, especially when substantial justice is at stake.

3. Referring to recent Supreme Court guidelines on condonation of delay, the High Court outlined key principles to be considered, such as a liberal approach, non-pedantic interpretation of "sufficient cause," and weighing the conduct and attitude of the party seeking condonation. The Court applied these principles to the present case and concluded that the substantial questions of law raised by the Department favored condonation of the delay.

4. Based on the above analysis, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Court's decision was guided by the principles of substantial justice, a pragmatic approach, and the need to balance technicalities with the overarching goal of justice dispensation.