2015 (2) TMI 832 - HC - Central Excise

Court sets aside Tribunal order due to appeal filing delay, emphasizes substantial justice over strict timelines.

The Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, M/s. Tamil Nadu Asbestos (Pipes)

The Court allowed the Department's appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order due to a delay in filing the appeal. The Court emphasized the need for a ... Delay in filing appeal - Sufficient cause - Administrative delay - Non-deliberate delay - Held that:- From a perusal of the documents available on record, it is clear that the delay of 37 days which has occurred is purely administrative in nature, as has been stated by the Department before the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause, which prevented them in filing the appeal, does not merit acceptance in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mst. Katiji & Ors. [1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court] , wherein the Supreme Court has held that the expression sufficient cause employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. Further, the Supreme Court also held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. In an identical circumstance, this Court in case of M/s.EID Parry (India) Ltd.[2015 (2) TMI 700 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS], following the above-said judgment allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue, thereby condoned the delay. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Decided in favour of appellant. Issues:1. Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.2. Consideration of sufficient cause for condonation of delay.3. Adherence to settled law by the Tribunal.4. Department's appeal to protect revenue and public interest.Analysis:Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal before the TribunalThe appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 37 days against the order of the original authority. The delay was due to the pendency of similar matters before the Supreme Court, leading the Department to pursue legal remedy by filing the appeal. The Tribunal observed that allowing appeals after a long lapse of time could open a Pandora's Box, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on lack of sufficient cause for the delay.Issue 2: Consideration of sufficient cause for condonation of delayThe Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Revenue, arguing that the delay was purely administrative and should be condoned. The Supreme Court's principles on condonation of delay emphasize a liberal and justice-oriented approach, focusing on substantial justice over technicalities. The Court cited previous judgments to support the argument that substantial justice should prevail over strict adherence to timelines.Issue 3: Adherence to settled law by the TribunalThe Tribunal's decision was criticized for not considering the facts pleaded as sufficient cause for the delay, especially when the appeal was filed to protect the interests of revenue and public interest. The Court referred to previous judgments to highlight the importance of a pragmatic and non-pedantic approach in condoning delays, ensuring that justice is not compromised due to technicalities.Issue 4: Department's appeal to protect revenue and public interestThe Court, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, favored the appellant/Department in the present appeal. The Court highlighted the need to balance the scales of justice for both parties, especially when a public body or entity representing a collective cause is involved. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal on its merits.In a similar context, a previous order by the Court had condoned the delay in filing an appeal, aligning with the principles established by the Supreme Court. The Court's decision in the present case was influenced by the need to ensure a consistent and just adjudicatory system, following the guidelines set forth by the higher judiciary.