2011 (3) TMI 300 - HC - Central Excise

Tribunal dismisses appeal due to delay in filing - Valid explanation required for condonation of delay

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) due ... Appeal to Appellant Tribunal - Condoning the delay - The delay in this case is 133 days, and nothing has been disclosed as to where the delay occurred in taking the decision to file appeal - The only reason given was that the delay occurred inadvertently - Held that: the R.C.P.No.8 of 1997, the Hon'ble Division Bench is still pending in this court - Therefore, the delay be condoned as the matter sub judice - This cannot be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal - When jurisdiction is vested with the Tribunal, and the appeal is dismissed as time barred, merely because appeal is pending for subsequent year cannot be a ground for condonation of delay - Hence, no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed - No costs. Issues:Delay in filing appeal before the tribunal, Condonation of delay, Jurisdiction of the TribunalAnalysis:The case involves the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai seeking a writ to quash the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench at Chennai, which dismissed the appeal filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The appeal was filed 133 days late, with the only reason for condonation being inadvertent delay. The Tribunal, citing a Supreme Court judgment, held that inadvertent delay without sufficient cause cannot be a ground for condonation. The court emphasized the need for a valid explanation to establish sufficient cause for condonation, especially in cases involving government departments. The delay of 133 days was not adequately explained, with the petitioner only attributing it to inadvertence.Furthermore, the petitioner argued that a previous direction by a Division Bench of the court to frame specific questions of law for adjudication should be considered, as the matter was still pending. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the pendency of a related matter does not justify condoning the delay in the present case. The court clarified that when the Tribunal has jurisdiction and dismisses an appeal as time-barred, the mere pendency of a subsequent appeal for a different year does not warrant condonation of delay. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it without costs, closing the connected miscellaneous petition.