Condonation of delay in rebate claims must be decided by a reasoned order, with fresh consideration directed.

The Bombay High Court held that an order rejecting condonation of delay in filing rebate claims could not stand where the refusal was based on the absence of recorded reasons. The Court noted that the appellate order condoning delay had been set aside under Section 35EE of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, but the respondents fairly accepted that the issue should be reconsidered. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to decide the condonation application afresh by a reasoned order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting condonation of delay in filing the rebate claims, on the ground that no reasons were recorded, should be interfered with and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The impugned order under Section 35EE of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 set aside the appellate order condoning delay. Since the rejection of condonation rested on the absence of recorded reasons, and the respondents fairly agreed that the matter should be reconsidered, the appropriate course was to set aside the impugned order and direct the appellate authority to decide the condonation application afresh by a reasoned order.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision on the condonation of delay, which is in favour of the petitioner.

---