2014 (11) TMI 618 - HC - Central Excise

Court emphasizes genuine reasons for delay in filing appeal against Central Excise Orders

UNIVERSAL PAPER MILLS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HALDIA

The High Court found the Tribunal's decision lacking in adequately considering the delay period in filing an appeal against Central Excise Orders. The ... Condonation of delay - Sufficient reason - Held that:- Tribunal fell in error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay on the ground that there was no explanation of the steps initiated by the applicant between 29th October, 2009 and 1st week of April, 2010. The applicant was required to explain the delay from 29th January, 2010 onwards and not from 29th October, 2009 onwards. The unexplained delay, if any, was between October 29, 2009 and 1st week of April 2010. - Tribunal very rightly found that the delay need not be explained date-wise. The reasons advanced by the applicants for delay should evince bona fides and should be sufficient to warrant condonation of delay in filing the appeal. - delay need not be explained mechanically but the reasons advanced for the delay should reflect bona fides, perhaps the learned Tribunal would have taken note of the consequences of usurpation of an office and consequential misplacement of records and files, and found the reasons acceptable, had it not considered the conduct of the appellant within the period of limitation - tribunal directed to consider the application for condonation of delay afresh - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Delay in filing appeal against Central Excise Orders.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing paper and paper board, filed an appeal against Orders-in-Appeal dated October 12, 2009, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata. The appellant claimed exemption for waste and scrap paper board under a specific notification. Initially, a show cause notice demanding duty was issued, which was dropped. However, another proceeding was initiated for goods cleared during specific periods. The demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. The appellant appealed against this order, seeking a stay which was partially granted. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. The appellant cited delay in filing the appeal due to an office takeover, leading to the inability to take steps promptly. The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing the lack of explanation for the delay period. The High Court noted the error in the Tribunal's decision, stating that the delay needed clarification from January 29, 2010, onwards, not from October 29, 2009. The Court emphasized that delay reasons should demonstrate bona fides for condonation. The Tribunal's failure to consider the period from January to April 2010 was highlighted, indicating a possible different outcome if assessed correctly.The Court found the Tribunal's approach lacking in considering the delay period adequately, suggesting a different conclusion if the delay was viewed more leniently. The Court directed the Tribunal to reevaluate the condonation of delay application, considering the observations made in the judgment. The Court emphasized the importance of assessing the reasons for delay in a bona fide manner. The Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, stating that the delay should not be mechanically explained but should reflect genuine reasons. The Court highlighted the significance of considering the impact of office usurpation on filing procedures and record maintenance. The Court noted that a different outcome might have been reached if the Tribunal had appropriately considered the delay period. The Court instructed the Tribunal to reexamine the application promptly, preferably within two months, and provide an urgent certified copy of the order to the parties upon request.