2017 (9) TMI 283 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 1527 days in filing appeal - The reason for delay is closure of the mill from 11.11.99 and the fact that the staff left the company since salary not paid - Held that - we find absolutely no sufficient cause, except to state that the delay of 1527 days is bonafide and the staff of the Company had left. Even taking for granted that the Company is closed, it is the duty of the petitioner to see that the appeal is filed in time - No sufficient / bonafide cause is shown for condonation - COD application rejected.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal

Analysis:
The judgment involves the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the High Court against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The delay in filing the appeal was 1527 days. The petitioner attributed the delay to the closure of the mill and the departure of the staff due to unpaid salaries. The petitioner contended that the delay was neither willful nor wanton but due to bonafide reasons. The Court referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, emphasizing the need for a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach while considering condonation of delay. The Court highlighted the importance of lack of bona fides, negligence, and the conduct of the party seeking condonation.

The Court further referred to the decision in H.Dohil Constructions Company Private Limted V. Nahar Exports Limited and Another, where the Supreme Court stressed the significance of due diligence in filing appeals and the consequences of lack of bonafides in the approach. The Court scrutinized the reasons provided for the delay, the failure to pay court fees, and the lack of proper details regarding the delay. It emphasized the need for justifiable reasons when a significant delay is involved in filing appeals, particularly in cases seeking specific performance. The Court highlighted the duty of the parties to show utmost diligence and valid reasons for delays in legal proceedings.

Additionally, the judgment cited the case of Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Vs. Appellate Authority, emphasizing the importance of considering the length of delay, the potential prejudice caused by condoning delays, and the principles of sound public policy and equity in matters of limitation. The Court rejected the petitioner's arguments for condonation of delay, stating that no sufficient or bonafide cause was shown for the delay of 1527 days. The Court held that even if the company was closed, it was the petitioner's duty to ensure timely filing of the appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and rejected the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal at the SR stage, without awarding costs.