2008 (12) TMI 164 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal allowed despite filing delay, emphasizes substantive justice over technicalities.

The appeal by M/s. ARK Enterprises was initially dismissed due to a 16-day delay in filing attributed to the illness of the appellant's staff. The ... Delay in filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) – Delay of 16 days – Power to condone the delay - . The fact that the concerned person had fallen ill just two days before normal period of filing the appeal expired strengthened his suspicion. There is no categorical evidence to find that the claim of the appellants as regards the cause for the same was genuine or manipulated. In the instant case the appeal was filed with delay of 16 days beyond 60 days period prescribed. The Commissioner (Appeals) is competent to condone this delay on sufficient case being shown. The appellant claimed that the person incharge of Excise was ill and had been under treatment in hospital during the period when the appeal could have been filed without delay. This claim has been canvassed on the strength of a discharge summary of the hospital concerned. The appeal is allowed and the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal due to illness of the appellant's staff.2. Exercise of judicial discretion by the Commissioner (Appeals) in condoning the delay.3. Application of legal principles regarding condonation of delay in filing appeals.4. Comparison of previous judicial decisions on condonation of delay.Analysis:Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal due to illness of the appellant's staffThe impugned order rejected an appeal by M/s. ARK Enterprises due to a delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to the illness of the concerned staff of the appellant-firm. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the delay was not due to 'sufficient cause' and relied on a Tribunal decision where a medical certificate's validity was questioned due to inconsistencies in the dates mentioned. The Commissioner also noted the date of admission and discharge of the staff member from the hospital, which led to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.Issue 2: Exercise of judicial discretion by the Commissioner (Appeals) in condoning the delayDuring the appeal, the appellants argued that they did not benefit from delaying the appeal intentionally and had a substantial case for a refund. They contended that the delay of 16 days was within the condonable period of 30 days and requested the Commissioner (Appeals) to exercise judicial discretion in condoning the delay. However, the Commissioner remained unconvinced about the genuineness of the reasons provided for the delay.Issue 3: Application of legal principles regarding condonation of delay in filing appealsThe Member (T) analyzed the case records and rival submissions. The appellants sought a refund of Rs. 6.1 lakhs, which they could not utilize due to exporting their final products. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to the illness of the Excise in charge of the appellant-company. The Member considered the legal principle of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay and emphasized the need for a meaningful application of the law to serve the ends of justice.Issue 4: Comparison of previous judicial decisions on condonation of delayThe Member referred to previous judicial decisions, including the State of Nagaland case and the Kathiravan Pipes case, which highlighted the importance of substantial justice over technicalities. These cases emphasized that delays in filing appeals should not be considered due to culpable negligence or mala fides. The Member concluded that denying the application for condonation of delay in the present case would amount to a denial of substantive justice. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits.