9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 921 - HC - CustomsCondonation of delay in filing appeal - application of the appellant rejected on the ground that the same is barred by limitation and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 455 days in filling the appeal - HELD THAT - It is well settled in law that the expression 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal consideration so as to advance the cause of justice and the same should not be used as a penal statute to punish the erring parties. Reference can be made to the case of PERUMON BHAGVATHY DEVASWOM, PERINADU VILLAGE VERSUS BHARGAVI AMMA (DEAD) BY LRS ORS. 2008 (7) TMI 836 - SUPREME COURT . In the application for condonation of delay, the appellant had stated that on account of the financial difficulty, he could not arrange the amount and the delay had caused - Taking into consideration that expression 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal consideration so as to advance the cause of justice, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for decision on merit after affording an opportunity to the parties.
Issues:
Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Dismissal of appeal by Tribunal on technical grounds without considering the merit of the case - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Interpretation of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. Analysis: The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging the dismissal of the appeal by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on technical grounds without assessing the merit of the case. The substantial question of law before the court was whether the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the appeal based on procedural issues without delving into the substantive aspects of the case. The appellant had been issued a notice denying the benefit of exemption in customs duty and faced a penalty of ?36,00,000. The appellant contended financial difficulties as the reason for delay in filing the appeal and inability to arrange the pre-deposit amount of ?2,75,000. The court considered the principle that the expression "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay should be liberally interpreted to serve the cause of justice and not as a punitive measure. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized the need to advance the cause of justice and not penalize parties for genuine difficulties. The appellant's explanation of financial constraints leading to the delay in filing the appeal was taken into account, and the court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Tribunal's order dated 06.12.2017. Consequently, the court quashed the previous order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a decision on merit after providing an opportunity to both parties. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of considering genuine reasons for delay in legal proceedings and ensuring justice is served without undue procedural obstacles.
|
