Court condones delay, restores appeal challenging Tribunal's rejection, emphasizes justice, rules in favor of petitioner.

The High Court allowed the petition challenging the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's rejection of the delay condonation application. The Court emphasized the importance of not letting delay hinder justice, condoned the 178-day delay, and restored the appeal to the Tribunal for further proceedings without expressing any opinion on the case's merits. The Court found the appeal maintainable under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, and ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering a fair hearing before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting delay condonation application.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash the order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 9.2.2018, which dismissed the application to condone a 178-day delay in filing an appeal against the order dated 13.7.2015 by the Commissioner (Appeals). Initially challenging three orders, the petitioner restricted the petition to contest only the CESTAT's delay condonation rejection order. The petitioner explained the delay citing the departure of their clerk before the matter's hearing by the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent timely appeal filing upon noticing the order. Despite receiving notice, the petitioner was absent during the Tribunal hearing, resulting in an ex-parte rejection of the delay condonation application without providing reasons.

The respondent contended that the appeal should have been filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the issue pertained to classification, rendering the appeal before CESTAT non-maintainable. They argued against entertaining the petition under extraordinary jurisdiction. Upon reviewing submissions and the CESTAT's order, the High Court decided to entertain the petition, acknowledging the maintainability of the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The High Court observed that the CESTAT's order lacked recorded reasons for rejecting the petitioner's delay explanation. Emphasizing the principle of not letting delay obstruct justice, the Court ordered the condonation of the 178-day delay in filing the appeal and restored it to the CESTAT's file. The Court clarified that it refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's merits, allowing both parties to present their arguments before the Tribunal in the ongoing appeal. The rule was made absolute to this extent, with no costs imposed.

---