Dismissal of Appeals and Stay Petitions due to 394-day delay and failure to obtain clearance

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & ST., PATNA

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & ST., PATNA - 2014 (33) S.T.R. 462 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Requirement of obtaining clearance from the Committee on Disputes for filing appeals.
3. Justification for approaching the High Court before the Tribunal.
4. Failure to provide satisfactory explanation for delay in filing appeals.

Analysis:
1. The Appeals and Stay Petitions were filed by M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (B.S.N.L) with a delay of 394 days. The Appellant attributed the delay to system failure, manual data calculation, and software package changes. They approached the High Court before the Tribunal based on counsel advice. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant failed to explain the delay post software update in November 2007. The Tribunal held that intentional delay should be explained satisfactorily. The Appeals were dismissed due to the Appellant's failure to justify the delay adequately.

2. The Respondent opposed the condonation of delay, highlighting that BSNL, a public sector undertaking, failed to obtain clearance from the Committee on Disputes before filing the Appeals. The Appeals were disposed of for lack of clearance. The Appellant's reliance on system failure as a reason for delay was refuted, emphasizing the need for timely filing even after system updates. The Tribunal dismissed the Applications for condonation of delay, citing the Appellant's failure to obtain clearance and file within the limitation period.

3. The Appellant's justification for approaching the High Court before the Tribunal was based on the ongoing recovery proceedings by the Department. The Tribunal observed that the Appellant failed to apply for clearance from the Committee on Disputes before filing the Appeals. The Appellant's decision to file a Writ before the High Court instead of directly approaching the Tribunal was not satisfactorily explained. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following proper appeal procedures as per the Orders' preambles.

4. The Tribunal considered the Appellant's explanations for the delay in filing the Appeals. Despite acknowledging the need to avoid intentional delays, the Tribunal found the Appellant's justifications lacking. The Appellant's failure to provide a convincing reason for the delay post software system update in November 2007 led to the dismissal of the Applications for condonation of delay. The Appeals and Stay Petitions were consequently dismissed by the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues related to condonation of delay, obtaining clearance for filing appeals, justifying the approach to the High Court, and explaining delays satisfactorily in legal proceedings.