TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT grants appeal despite late filing due to counsel's accident, cites J.K. Synthetics Ltd. case</h1> <h3>US. FOODS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-II</h3> The CESTAT, New Delhi, allowed the appeal despite being filed late due to exceptional circumstances involving the appellant's counsel's accident and ... Appeal - Restoration of ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issues considered by the Tribunal were: Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the appellant should be condoned. Whether the application for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed previously, should be allowed. Whether the stay application should be entertained and what conditions should apply for its consideration.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISCondonation of DelayThe legal framework for condonation of delay involves the discretion of the Tribunal to allow appeals filed beyond the prescribed period if sufficient cause is shown. The appellant argued that the delay of 49 days was due to a communication gap caused by the closure of the factory, which was beyond their control, and not due to any mala fide intent or inaction. The appellant also cited an accident involving their counsel as a reason for missing the initial hearing.The Tribunal considered the appellant's reasons for delay, noting the absence of an affidavit to substantiate the claims. However, it recognized the potential for injustice if the applications were dismissed outright. The Tribunal referred to the precedent set by the Apex Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE, which allows for leniency in procedural matters to prevent undue hardship. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and admit the appeal.Restoration of AppealThe appellant's appeal had been dismissed on 28th June 2007 due to non-appearance, attributed to the counsel's accident. The appellant sought restoration of the appeal, claiming no notice was served for the hearing on 23rd October 2008, which led to the dismissal of their restoration application.The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's claim regarding the lack of notice and the accident involving their counsel. It emphasized the importance of providing a fair chance to present the case, especially when procedural lapses could lead to substantive injustice. The Tribunal allowed the restoration application, thereby reviving the appeal for consideration.Stay ApplicationThe appellant had failed to comply with a stay order previously issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), resulting in dismissal of their appeal on 13th September 2006. The appellant expressed willingness to comply with the Tribunal's directions to seek necessary remedies.The Tribunal, aiming to facilitate a fair hearing, directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- within four weeks and submit proof of compliance to the Commissioner (Appeals). This condition was set to ensure the appellant's commitment to the appeal process and to provide an opportunity for the case to be heard on its merits. The Tribunal instructed the Commissioner (Appeals) to schedule a hearing upon compliance and to issue a reasoned order following due process.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal's significant holdings include: 'Considering that the appellant may be deprived of justice if its applications are thrown at the threshold, delay is condoned and appeal is admitted.' The restoration application was allowed, reflecting the Tribunal's commitment to ensuring procedural fairness and access to justice. The Tribunal established the principle that procedural delays should not obstruct substantive justice, referencing the Apex Court's decision in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE. The Tribunal set a condition for the appellant to make a pre-deposit to demonstrate their commitment to pursuing the appeal, thus balancing the interests of justice with procedural requirements.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision reflects a judicious balance between procedural rules and the overarching goal of ensuring justice. By condoning the delay and allowing the restoration of the appeal, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing parties with a fair opportunity to present their case. The requirement for a pre-deposit underscores the need for appellants to demonstrate seriousness in pursuing their appeals while ensuring that procedural compliance is maintained.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
