2022 (1) TMI 763 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 376 days in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay was shown or not - HELD THAT - It is trite that there is no straight jacket formula for exercising the discretionary power in condoning the delay which necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is true that the explanation offered by the appellant for condoning the inordinate delay was not substantiated by the material evidence but in the interest of justice and equity, we deem it appropriate to provide an opportunity to the appellant to satisfactorily explain the cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The ends of justice would be sub-served in setting aside the order and remanding the matter to the CESTAT whereby an opportunity may be provided to the appellant to file a better affidavit for explaining the cause for the delay satisfactorily - matter is remanded to the CESTAT to re-consider the same in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the appellant to file a better affidavit for explaining the reasons satisfactorily inasmuch as the delay caused in filing the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Substantial questions of law.

Analysis:
The appellant, an importer of mobile phones and assembler of Note Book Computers, challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) demanding payment of duty, interest, and penalty. The appellant contended that the delay of 376 days in filing the appeal before CESTAT should be condoned. The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the dismissal of the appeal without condoning the delay and the failure to consider the merits of the matter for condoning the delay.

The appellant argued that the delay was due to bonafide reasons and requested the Tribunal to condone the delay in the interest of justice and equity. The Revenue, however, supported the Tribunal's decision, stating that no satisfactory explanation was provided for the delay. The High Court, after considering the submissions from both parties and the material on record, noted that there is no fixed formula for condoning delay and that each case must be assessed based on its facts and circumstances.

The Court found that while the appellant's explanation for the delay lacked substantiated material evidence, it deemed it appropriate to provide the appellant with an opportunity to adequately explain the cause for the delay. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter back to CESTAT for reconsideration. The Court did not find any substantial questions of law requiring consideration and disposed of the appeal without answering them.