2023 (8) TMI 897 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in rejecting the appeal of the appellant on the ground of limitation? - HELD THAT - It is settled law for such technicalities right of appeal - to be heard by a Competent Appellate Authority as statutorily provided should not be withered away. Commissioner (Appeals) in this case by not allowing the application for condonation of delay has denied the opportunity to the appellant to put his case on merits in appeal filed. There is enough reason to justify the delay of twenty three days ideally such delay should have been condoned and appeal heard on merits. There are no merits in this order of Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the appellant on grounds of limitation after dismissing his application for condonation of delay. The matter needs to be remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits in appeal that was filed by the appellant before him. Appeal allowed and matter remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits to be decided within three months of date of receipt of this order.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue of Condonation of Delay:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant on the grounds of limitation, citing a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal. The appellant had requested condonation of delay, stating that the director of the company had gone out of India, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant had sufficient time to decide on filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. The appellant's reasons for condonation of delay were deemed contradictory and irrational, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without consideration of the merits.

Legal Precedents and Considerations:
The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal Madras and highlighted the importance of bona fides and due diligence in condonation of delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized the need for parties to show sufficient cause for delay and the importance of explaining day-to-day delays. The judgment also cited legal precedents emphasizing the judiciary's role in ensuring substantial justice and balancing technical considerations with the cause of justice. The judgment underscored the significance of a justice-oriented approach and the need to avoid a rigid and technical view in matters of delay.

Decision and Remand:
The Appellate Tribunal found no merits in the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to dismiss the appeal based on limitation. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The Tribunal emphasized the right of appeal to be heard by a Competent Appellate Authority and the need to avoid denying opportunities for parties to present their cases on merits. The judgment highlighted the importance of condoning delay when substantial justice is at stake and cited legal precedents supporting a liberal approach in such matters.