2014 (8) TMI 966 - HC - Central Excise

High Court admits appeal, criticizes Tribunal, orders costs payment, and directs appeal processing.

ASTEC LIFE SCIENC ELT D. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

The High Court admitted the appeal, condoning the 100-day delay in filing due to a reasonable explanation provided by the Appellant. The Court criticized ... Condonation of delay - Whether the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zone, Mumbai was justified in dismissing the Appeal on the ground that the delay of 100 days has not been explained satisfactorily by producing proof of action taken against the employee of the Appellant for his negligence - Held that:- Tribunal has not referred to any principle of law which would enable it to hold that the delay which is, otherwise, satisfactorily explained and for which the cause shown is reasonable and not false should be not condoned only because a company like the Appellant has failed to show proof of action taken against the employee who was in default and for whose negligence the delay occurred. If that is not to be found in any judgments of any Court of law, then, the Tribunal’s approach cannot be upheld. The delay deserves to be condoned by applying liberal principles, if the Appellants are not guilty of gross negligence or that their conduct is not lacking in bona fides. For these reasons, we condone the delay of 100 days in filing the present Appeal - Delay condoned. Issues involved:Delay in filing the appeal; Justification for dismissing the appeal based on delay; Requirement of proof of action against negligent employee; Condonation of delay; Payment of costs by the Appellant.Analysis:The primary issue in this case revolved around the delay of 100 days in filing the appeal. The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zone, Mumbai, had dismissed the appeal citing unsatisfactory explanation for the delay and the absence of proof of action taken against the negligent employee. The High Court, after hearing both sides, admitted the appeal based on the substantial question of law regarding the justification of the Tribunal's decision. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal failed to reference any legal principle to support its decision to not condone the delay, especially when the explanation provided was reasonable and not false. The Court emphasized that the delay should be condoned if the appellants were not grossly negligent or lacked bona fides.Regarding the requirement of proof of action against the negligent employee, the Court clarified that such a condition was not supported by legal precedent. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's approach could not be upheld if not supported by established legal principles. Therefore, the Court decided to condone the delay of 100 days in filing the appeal, given the circumstances of the case.Furthermore, the Court ordered the Appellant to pay costs amounting to Rs. 5,000 to the Revenue within four weeks. The registration and numbering of the appeal by the Tribunal were contingent upon the payment of costs and the submission of proof thereof. The Court directed the Tribunal to proceed with the appeal in accordance with the law once the costs were paid and proof was provided, ensuring that justice was served while upholding procedural requirements.