Tribunal denies condonation of delay for appeal filing due to lack of diligence and bona fide approach.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal by M/s. Team Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. The delay of over 16 months was not condoned as the Tribunal found that the approach to the High Court was not bona fide and the delay post the High Court's decision showed a lack of diligence. The Tribunal emphasized that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the condonation application.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
3. Bona fide prosecution of the case in the wrong forum.
4. Examination of sufficient cause for delay.
5. Relevance of judicial precedents and statutory provisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing an Appeal:
The primary issue is whether the delay in filing the appeal by M/s. Team Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. should be condoned. The appeal was filed after a delay of more than 16 months. The applicant argued that the delay was due to the time spent pursuing a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai, which was ultimately dismissed on the grounds of alternate remedy. The applicant claimed that the period during which the writ was pending should be excluded for calculating the period of limitation for filing the appeal, invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act:
The applicant contended that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in bona fide prosecution of a case in a court without jurisdiction, should apply. They relied on various judicial precedents, including the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag And Another Vs. MST. Katiji and Others, where the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the expression “sufficient cause” is elastic enough to enable courts to do substantial justice.

3. Bona Fide Prosecution of the Case in the Wrong Forum:
The respondent opposed the condonation, arguing that the applicant’s approach to the High Court was not bona fide. They contended that the applicant was aware that the correct forum for appeal was the Tribunal but chose to file a writ petition to avoid the mandatory pre-deposit required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The respondent cited judgments from various High Courts, including Ganesh Yadav Vs. UOI and Anjani Technoplast Vs. CC, which emphasized the mandatory nature of the pre-deposit and argued that the applicant’s actions were not in good faith.

4. Examination of Sufficient Cause for Delay:
The Tribunal examined whether there was a sufficient cause for the delay. It was noted that the applicant applied for the certified copy of the High Court’s order 21 days after the writ was dismissed and filed the appeal almost a month after receiving the order. The Tribunal found this delay to be indicative of a lack of diligence and bona fide intention. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Nimbus Communications Limited Vs. Commissioner of S.T. Mumbai-IV, where it was held that the pre-deposit requirement could not be waived, and approaching the High Court on this ground was not justified.

5. Relevance of Judicial Precedents and Statutory Provisions:
The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents cited by both parties. The respondent relied on decisions such as Ketan V. Parekh Vs. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, which held that the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to extend the period of limitation prescribed under special statutes like the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal observed that the Central Excise Act provides a complete code with specific provisions for the time limit and grounds for condonation of delay, and there is no upper limit for the period of condonation in this case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The approach to the High Court was not bona fide, and the delay after the High Court’s decision indicated a lack of diligence. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.

---