2015 (1) TMI 582 - HC - Central Excise

High Court reverses Tribunal's dismissal, citing unreasonable expectations from appellant, orders prompt review and urgent order copies.

ANDEW YULE AND COMPANY LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., KOLKATA

ANDEW YULE AND COMPANY LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., KOLKATA - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 24 (Cal.) Issues:Delay in preferring the appeal and condonation of delay.Analysis:The appellant filed an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, seeking condonation of a 338-day delay in preferring the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application and Appeal based on the judgment in Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not show diligence and commitment in prosecuting the matter in time, as they failed to promptly retrieve relevant documents and did not approach the Department for necessary records after being informed of the appeal's dismissal. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons given for the delay were not sufficient cause, in line with the Supreme Court's decision.The appellant, represented by a Senior Advocate, relied on the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Agarwal Hardware Works Pvt. Ltd. to argue that a substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision not to condone the delay. It was highlighted that unlike the case in Office of the Chief Post Master General, the appellant in this matter did provide some explanation for the delay. On the other hand, the respondent's Advocate contended that the causes shown by the appellant were correctly deemed unacceptable, and the Tribunal's decision did not require any interference, especially considering the lack of sufficient cause.The High Court, after a detailed analysis, found that the Tribunal's decision was not based on a proper assessment of the appellant's explanation for the delay. The Court noted that the Tribunal did not disbelieve the causes shown by the appellant but expected a higher level of diligence from them. It was observed that the Tribunal did not adequately address whether the explanations provided constituted sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, the Court deemed the Tribunal's order as perverse, leading to the admission of the appeal in favor of the appellant. The Court directed the Tribunal to expeditiously take up and dispose of the appeal and stay application on merits. Finally, the application and the appeal were disposed of, with instructions to provide urgent copies of the order to the parties upon request.