2015 (4) TMI 991 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Change in office address - Held that - Any dismissal of appeal at the threshold may turn an meritorious appeal into demeritious. So also the appellant shall be deprived of principles of natural justice. While we appreciate the principle laid down by apex court in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and another Vs MST Katiji and others - 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court and in N.Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy - 1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and the reason stated in the dates and events chart filed by appellant, it does not appeal to the common sense how a litigant could be silent after participation in a proceeding without being for vigilant of outcome of the proceeding to act expeditiously for redressal of any wrong done to him. In the absence of vigilant attitude of the appellant, it is not possible to allow the application for condonation of delay for which that is dismissed. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal due to change of address leading to dismissal of appeal, Condonation of delay, Principles of natural justice

In this case, the appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a change of address, which resulted in the order from the learned Commissioner (Appeals) not being served on time. The appellant requested condonation of the delay, emphasizing that there was no mala fide intent behind the delay. The appellant highlighted that the delay should be excused to prevent dismissal of the appeal. The Revenue, however, cited a principle established by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras regarding the presumption of service once a notice is sent by registered post. The appellant countered this by referring to a Tribunal case where it was held that delay is condonable unless the impugned order is served on the appellant.

The judges acknowledged the importance of not dismissing an appeal prematurely, as it could unjustly affect a meritorious case and deprive the appellant of natural justice principles. While recognizing legal precedents, including those set by the apex court, the judges noted that the appellant's lack of vigilance in monitoring the proceedings and taking timely action was a crucial factor. Despite the reasons provided by the appellant and the legal references cited, the judges found it challenging to excuse the delay without active participation and vigilance from the appellant. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the stay application and appeal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court.