2012 (7) TMI 843 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal emphasizes access to justice in condonation of delay due to illness

ASHOK & CO. PAN BAHAR LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NEW DELHI

The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to decline condonation of delay in filing an appeal due to the Counsel's illness, emphasizing ... Condonation of delay - Held that:- Ordinarily the period of limitation for filing an appeal against the adjudication order is sixty days from the date of communication of order/decision to the party concerned. However, the proviso to Section 35(1) authorizes Commissioner (Appeals) to extend the period of limitation for a further period of thirty days if he satisfies that the appellant was prevented from presenting the appeal within sixty days by a sufficient cause - plea of the appellant is that appeal could not be filed within sixty days from the date of service of the order-in-original on the appellant as his Counsel was suffering from viral fever. The sickness of a lawyer or the party concern in our view is a sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing of appeal. Just because the appellant did not produce the medical certificate of illness of his Counsel, in our view Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in declining the request to condone the delay in filing of appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) was expected to take liberal view of the matter instead of shutting the door of justice on the appellant by taking hyper technical view of the matter. Thus, under the circumstances, we find it difficult to sustain the order of Commissioner (Appeals) refusing to condone the delay of seven days in filing of appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Interpretation of Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act regarding the period of limitation for filing an appeal.3. Justifiability of declining to condone the delay in filing an appeal due to illness.Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing an Appeal:The appeal was filed with a delay of seven days after the prescribed sixty-day limitation period from the date of service of the order-in-original. The appellant sought condonation of delay under the proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, allowing an extension of thirty days if sufficient cause is shown. The appellant attributed the delay to the illness of their Counsel, who had viral fever. The Commissioner (Appeals) declined the request to condone the delay, citing lack of documentary evidence to substantiate the illness claim. The appellant's counsel argued that a liberal view should be taken in such cases, emphasizing that justice should not be denied based on technicalities unless gross negligence is evident.Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act:Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act governs the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the discretion to condone delays. The provision allows a sixty-day period for filing an appeal, extendable by thirty days if sufficient cause is demonstrated. The appellant's plea of the Counsel's illness preventing timely filing of the appeal falls within the purview of sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The law mandates a liberal approach in such matters, ensuring access to justice and not unduly penalizing parties for genuine reasons beyond their control.Issue 3: Justifiability of Declining to Condone Delay due to Illness:The Commissioner (Appeals) refused to condone the delay based on the absence of medical evidence supporting the Counsel's illness claim. However, the Tribunal opined that the sickness of a lawyer or party is a valid ground for condoning delay in filing an appeal. Emphasizing the importance of a liberal interpretation, the Tribunal criticized the hyper-technical approach taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) and overturned the decision. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration on the merits, highlighting the necessity of affording the appellant an opportunity to present their case.This judgment underscores the significance of balancing procedural requirements with the principles of justice and fairness. It clarifies the approach to be adopted in condoning delays, particularly when genuine reasons such as illness are presented. The decision emphasizes the need for adjudicating authorities to adopt a liberal view, ensuring that technicalities do not impede access to justice for litigants facing legitimate challenges beyond their control.