1994 (4) TMI 171 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal dismissed for failure to revive in time despite High Court stay. Delay uncondoned.

WS. INSULATORS OF INDIA LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EXCISE, MADRAS

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal seeking condonation of delay in reviving the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Despite obtaining an ad interim stay ... Appeal - Condonation of delay Issues: Condonation of delay in revival of appeal.In this case, the applicants sought condonation of delay in reviving their appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was initially filed against an order of refund passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, which was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) due to exceeding the six-month period for refund. The applicants then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the Collector's order, which resulted in an ad interim stay. The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn with liberty to revive it after the High Court's decision. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, directing the applicants to revive the appeal within one month. Despite this, the applicants filed the appeal after a delay, leading to the issue of condonation of delay being raised before the Tribunal.The applicants argued that they pursued the remedy in good faith, going for a review of the High Court's order before filing the appeal within one month of the review application's dismissal. They contended that condoning the delay was crucial to prevent prejudice as they had a strong case on merit, supported by the High Court's observations during the stay. On the other hand, the Department argued against condonation, citing the applicants' failure to comply with the High Court's explicit directions to move the Tribunal within the stipulated period.The Tribunal noted that the applicants had approached the High Court for a remedy and obtained a stay on the Collector's order, leading to the withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to revive it. The High Court's dismissal of the Writ Petition emphasized the applicants' statutory remedy and directed them to move the Tribunal within one month. However, the applicants failed to adhere to this timeline, despite no stay on the High Court's order. The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal beyond the one-month period could not be condoned, especially since the applicants did not provide a satisfactory explanation for non-compliance with the High Court's directions. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the uncondoned delay in filing.