Court emphasizes access to justice over technicalities, directs condonation of delay in revision application.

The Court criticized the hyper-technical view taken by the Joint Secretary in dismissing a revision application due to an eight-day delay in filing. Emphasizing the importance of ensuring justice is not only done but seen to be done, the Court held that the delay was not a sufficient reason to deny access to justice. It directed the condonation of the delay, setting aside the order and instructing the Joint Secretary to promptly decide the revision petition. This decision highlights the need for quasi-judicial bodies to adopt a liberal approach in condoning delays to uphold faith in the legal system.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the legality of the order dismissing the revision application under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 due to delay in filing.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, imported capital goods under Customs Exemption Notification. Subsequently, shifted these goods to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) for research and development purposes. The petitioner paid duty on these goods and filed rebate claims, which were partly allowed by the Assistant Commissioner but rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The petitioner then filed a revision application before the Joint Secretary, challenging the rejection. The Joint Secretary dismissed the application due to an eight-day delay in filing. The petitioner argued that the Joint Secretary has the power to condone the delay under Section 35EE(2) of the Act. The respondent contended that as per Rule 10(2) of the Central Excise Rules, the date of filing is when the application is received, justifying the dismissal.

The Court emphasized that procedural law should not hinder justice and that quasi-judicial bodies must ensure justice is not only done but also seen to be done. It stressed the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays, citing Supreme Court precedents. The Court noted that the petitioner had no control over the delay caused by the postal department in delivering the application.

Ultimately, the Court held that the delay of eight days was not a sufficient reason to deny access to justice. It criticized the hyper-technical view taken by the Joint Secretary and directed the condonation of the delay. The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the order and instructing the Joint Secretary to decide the revision petition promptly.

This judgment underscores the importance of balancing procedural requirements with the fundamental right to access justice, emphasizing the need for quasi-judicial bodies to adopt a liberal approach in condoning delays to uphold faith in the legal system.

---