Court restores petition after rejecting challenge against delay condonation, emphasizing need for plausible explanations.

The application for restoration (CAN No. 3555 of 2018) was accepted, leading to the recall of the order of dismissal dated May 16, 2018. Consequently, WP No. 6214(W) of 2018 was restored to its original file and number. The challenge to the CESTAT order in WP No. 6214(W) of 2018 was dismissed as the Court upheld CESTAT's decision to reject the delay condonation due to the insufficient and general explanation provided for the delay. The Court emphasized the importance of providing plausible explanations for delay condonation and ruled in favor of the CESTAT's decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for restoration - CAN No. 3555 of 2018
2. Challenge to CESTAT order - WP No. 6214(W) of 2018

Analysis:
1. Application for Restoration (CAN No. 3555 of 2018): The application for restoration was accepted based on sufficient causes shown, leading to the recall of the order of dismissal dated May 16, 2018. Consequently, WP No. 6214(W) of 2018 was restored to its original file and number. The application under CAN No. 3555 of 2018 was allowed without any order as to costs.

2. Challenge to CESTAT Order (WP No. 6214(W) of 2018): The writ petition challenged an order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, where an application for condonation of delay was rejected on March 22, 2018. The impugned order noted the absence of a specific explanation for the delay other than a general reason of illness, leading to the refusal to condone the delay. The petitioner argued for lenient consideration citing medical evidence of illness and the meritorious nature of the appeal. However, the Court emphasized that while delay applications should be viewed leniently, a sufficient and plausible explanation is necessary. In this case, the petitioner's general illness explanation did not cover the entire delay period, especially considering the partnership firm structure with multiple partners. The Court found that the illness did not incapacitate the person from pursuing the appeal, and the CESTAT's decision to reject the delay condonation was upheld. The Court clarified that leniency in delay condonation does not equate to automatic allowance, emphasizing the need for plausible explanations for delay condonation.

In conclusion, the writ petition challenging the CESTAT order was dismissed with no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of the order were to be provided to the parties upon fulfilling the necessary formalities.

---