2016 (12) TMI 1507 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay of 114 days - delay due to the reasons that at the time of receipt of the order impugned before the Tribunal, the Consultant was out of country, and thereafter, the managing partner was also out of country and it was also the case on behalf of the appellant-assessee that the father of the Consultant was not well and had passed away and even his wife was suffering from breast cancer - Held that - the learned Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the Appeal since there does not appear to be any deliberate delay and/or negligence on the part of the appellant in not preferring the Appeal within the period of limitation. By not preferring Appeal within the period of limitation, as such, the appellant-assessee was not going to be benefited - delay condoned - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay

The judgment by the Gujarat High Court involved a case where the appellant appealed against an order passed by the Commissioner [Appeals] before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was delayed by 114 days, and the Tribunal refused to condone the delay. The appellant argued that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances, such as the consultant and managing partner being out of the country, the consultant's father passing away, and the consultant's wife suffering from breast cancer. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that there was no deliberate delay or negligence on the part of the appellant. The Court emphasized that the delay did not benefit the appellant and decided to quash the Tribunal's order for not condoning the delay. The High Court allowed the Tax Appeal, set aside the Tribunal's orders, and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with the law.

The High Court's analysis focused on the circumstances leading to the delay in filing the appeal. The Court considered the reasons provided by the appellant, including the consultant and managing partner being out of the country, the consultant's personal hardships, and the absence of deliberate delay or negligence. The Court emphasized that the delay did not provide any advantage to the appellant and highlighted the importance of allowing the appellant to present the case on its merits. The Court concluded that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay, as there was no willful delay or negligence apparent in the case. The High Court's decision to quash the Tribunal's order and allow the appeal was based on the lack of deliberate delay and the need to ensure the appellant's opportunity to present their case effectively.

In its detailed analysis, the High Court considered the appellant's arguments regarding the reasons for the delay, such as the consultant's family emergencies and the absence of any intentional delay. The Court noted that the delay did not confer any benefit to the appellant and stressed the importance of allowing the appellant to proceed with the case on its merits. The Court found that the Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay was unjustified, given the circumstances presented by the appellant. By setting aside the Tribunal's orders and condoning the delay, the High Court aimed to ensure that the appellant had a fair opportunity to present their case before the Tribunal. The Court's decision was based on the principles of fairness and the absence of deliberate delay or negligence on the part of the appellant.