2018 (2) TMI 1675 - HC - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - Condonation of delay - Held that - Before you doubt the bonafides of a litigant and term the version as insufficient for condoning the delay, a Court of law like a Tribunal must find out from its own record atleast any contrary version of the Revenue. If there is no version of the Revenue contravening this factual position, or is any conduct attributable as negligent can be culled out during the course of the proceedings otherwise, then, the Tribunal in its over enthusiasm, and possibly obsessed by disposal mania, decide appeals pending before it in this casual and light hearted manner. Courts of Law are not set up for mere disposal of cases. Courts of Law are established for adjudication of cases, particularly appeals so as to render justice to parties in accordance with law. Appeal restored to its file for adjudication - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay of 665 days by the Tribunal.
2. Discretionary and equitable relief sought by the petitioner.
3. Filing of the appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise.
4. Show cause notices issued and appeals pending before the Tribunal's bench at Ahmedabad.
5. Noncompliance with the order of predeposit leading to dismissal of some appeals.
6. Employee's lapse in filing the appeal due to factory relocation.
7. Affidavit filed by the concerned employee.
8. Revenue's lack of counter to the application for condonation of delay.
9. Tribunal's duty to consider all aspects before terming a version as false or negligent.
10. Tribunal's role in ensuring substantial justice and fair opportunity for parties.
11. Setting aside the order, allowing the petition, and directing payment of costs for condonation of delay.
12. Restoration of the appeal for adjudication on merits.

Analysis:
The High Court of BOMBAY HIGH COURT addressed the issue of condonation of delay of approximately 665 days by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner's application for condonation, citing gross negligence by the petitioner. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's assessment, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of the cause shown before disentitling a party from seeking relief. The High Court highlighted the discretionary and equitable nature of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, stressing the importance of considering all aspects before terming a version as false or negligent.

Regarding the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, the High Court noted the timeline of events, including show cause notices issued and appeals pending before the Tribunal's bench at Ahmedabad. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's efforts in contesting show cause notices and filing appeals in a timely manner, except for the specific appeal in question.

The High Court considered the employee's lapse in filing the appeal due to the factory relocation process, which caused a delay in submitting the appeal. The Court reviewed the affidavit filed by the concerned employee and highlighted the lack of a counter from the Revenue to the application for condonation of delay. The Court emphasized the Tribunal's duty to ensure a fair opportunity for parties to present their case and receive substantial justice.

Ultimately, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, allowing the petition and directing the petitioner to pay costs as a condition for condonation of delay. Upon proof of payment, the Tribunal was instructed to condone the delay and restore the appeal for adjudication on merits and in accordance with the law. The Court stressed the importance of balancing rights and equities while ensuring fair treatment for all parties involved.