Appeals dismissed for delay in filing before Commissioner (Appeals) without sufficient cause. Emphasizes adherence to limitation periods.

The court dismissed the appeals due to inordinate delays of over 20 and 24 months in filing them before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay, as the reasons provided, including medical treatment, were not substantiated. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to limitation periods and the need for genuine and justifiable reasons for seeking condonation of delay.

---

---

Issues involved:
Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case is whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) which were belated. The legal position regarding condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was examined. The court referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, emphasizing the need for a liberal approach for short delays and a stricter approach for inordinate delays.

2. The law of limitation is based on public policy to ensure legal remedies are availed without delay. Section 5 of the Limitation Act empowers courts to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown. The expression "sufficient cause" is flexible to serve the ends of justice. Each case is unique, and the court must examine if the delay is properly explained with reasonable diligence. The purpose is to do substantial justice between the parties.

3. The court must adopt a liberal approach for short delays and a strict approach for inordinate delays. The applicant must establish that the delay was beyond their control and inevitable despite acting with due care. The existence of sufficient cause depends on the facts of each case, and no exhaustive list defines it. Judicial discretion is crucial in deciding condonation of delay cases based on individual circumstances.

4. In this specific case, the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The appeals were filed after significant delays of more than 20 and 24 months, which were not adequately justified. The appellant's argument of the proprietor's medical treatment affecting the filing of appeals was not substantiated. The court found the delays inexcusable and not due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control.

5. Consequently, the court held that no substantial question of law arose in the appeals due to the lack of merit. The appeals were dismissed based on the inordinate delays in filing them before the Commissioner (Appeals). The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to limitation periods and the need to establish genuine and justifiable reasons for seeking condonation of delay.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal principles and factual considerations involved in the case regarding the condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) under the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Finance Act.

---