2017 (11) TMI 932 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of revision application - time limitation - condonation of delay in filing revision application - fault of postal authorities - Held that - the petitioner had clearly stated that the revision application was submitted to the postal authority for being delivered at Delhi. But due to inefficiency of the postal department, the petition had reached Delhi, from Bangalore, after a delay of eight days. Once the petition was handed over to the postal department, the petition had no control over the delivery of the revision application in the office of the Under Secretary. Since the petition had been sent within the period granted by law, the petitioner had exercised due diligence. For, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the inefficiency of the postal department. Since the petition was delayed only by eight days, there was no reason for the Joint Secretary to have a pedantic view of the matter - also, since the Joint Secretary does have the power to condone the delay by further period of three months, the said power should have been invoked by the Joint Secretary; the delay of merely eight days should have been condoned by him. Delay condoned - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the legality of the order dismissing the revision application under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 due to delay in filing.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, imported capital goods under Customs Exemption Notification. Subsequently, shifted these goods to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) for research and development purposes. The petitioner paid duty on these goods and filed rebate claims, which were partly allowed by the Assistant Commissioner but rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The petitioner then filed a revision application before the Joint Secretary, challenging the rejection. The Joint Secretary dismissed the application due to an eight-day delay in filing. The petitioner argued that the Joint Secretary has the power to condone the delay under Section 35EE(2) of the Act. The respondent contended that as per Rule 10(2) of the Central Excise Rules, the date of filing is when the application is received, justifying the dismissal.

The Court emphasized that procedural law should not hinder justice and that quasi-judicial bodies must ensure justice is not only done but also seen to be done. It stressed the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays, citing Supreme Court precedents. The Court noted that the petitioner had no control over the delay caused by the postal department in delivering the application.

Ultimately, the Court held that the delay of eight days was not a sufficient reason to deny access to justice. It criticized the hyper-technical view taken by the Joint Secretary and directed the condonation of the delay. The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the order and instructing the Joint Secretary to decide the revision petition promptly.

This judgment underscores the importance of balancing procedural requirements with the fundamental right to access justice, emphasizing the need for quasi-judicial bodies to adopt a liberal approach in condoning delays to uphold faith in the legal system.