Court allows appeal due to delay citing appellant's brother's death as sufficient cause, directs CESTAT to hear on merits.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the CESTAT that dismissed the appellant's appeal due to a delay of 262 days. The Court considered the circumstances, including the appellant's brother's illness and death, as sufficient cause for the delay. It held that the appellant should not suffer dismissal without the appeal being heard on merits, attributing the delay to the advocate/consultant's default and the appellant's preoccupation with caregiving. The Court directed the CESTAT to hear the matter on its merits.

---

---

Issues: Appeal against dismissal of appeal on grounds of delay.

Analysis:
The High Court heard an appeal against the order of the CESTAT, which dismissed the appellant's appeal due to a delay of 262 days. The Court admitted the appeal based on the substantial question of law regarding the correctness of the dismissal on grounds of delay. The appellant received the impugned order on 04.08.2013, and the CESTAT found no explanation for the delay from that date. However, it was revealed that within the original limitation period of 90 days, the appellant had forwarded the appeal papers to consultants for filing, but the appeal was not filed in time. The Tribunal did not consider this a sufficient reason for the delay and inferred negligence on the appellant's part. During the original period, the appellant's brother, who was being cared for by the sole proprietor of the appellant firm, fell ill and passed away on 11.06.2014 after a prolonged illness.

The High Court found that the combination of these circumstances constituted sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The Court noted that the appellant should not face dismissal of the appeal without it being considered on merits due to the default of the Advocate/consultant in filing the appeal on time. Additionally, during the original limitation period, the appellant was not negligent but preoccupied with caring for the ailing brother. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and judgment, and directing the CESTAT to hear the matter on merits.

---