2014 (12) TMI 864 - HC - Central Excise

High Court allows appeal, sets aside Tribunal order, emphasizes substantial justice over technicality

The Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Ultramarine & Pigments Ltd.

The Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Ultramarine & Pigments Ltd. - 2015 (319) E.L.T. 285 (Mad.) Issues:Delay in filing appeal, Tribunal's dismissal of petition for condonation of delayAnalysis:The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, seeking condonation of a 23-day delay in filing the appeal. The High Court admitted the appeal based on substantial questions of law, questioning the Tribunal's dismissal of the petition for condonation of delay. The High Court expressed disappointment at the Tribunal's strong stance on the delay, considering the Department's explanation that the delay was due to the Committee of Commissioners being engaged in Budget work, which is crucial for state affairs.The High Court found the Department's reasonable cause for delay justified, emphasizing that the delay was marginal and the Department was serious about pursuing the matter promptly. The Court also acknowledged the issue of frequent power cuts affecting work efficiency. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in The Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, the High Court highlighted the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations when dealing with delay issues.Notably, the respondent's counsel had no objection to condoning the delay. Considering the minimal delay, the High Court, in line with the Supreme Court's principles, decided to condone the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be taken up and disposed of on its merits. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed with no costs incurred.