TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1735
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner being Excise Misc. Application (ROA) No. 11193 of 2024 on the ground that the same has been filed after a gap of seven (7) years. 4. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a Co-operative Society duly registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, inter alia, engaged in the manufacturing of sugar and molasses. The petitioner - Mandali was duly registered with the Central Excise Department under Reg. No. AAAAS5807JXM001 for the manufacture of V.P. Sugar under Chapter No. 1701 and molasses under Chapter No. 1703 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, respectively. The petitioner - Mandali was availing the facility of CENVAT credit on inputs/capital goods/input services under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 4.1. The petitioner -Mandali was clearing the final product on payment of Central Excise duty through the current account and CENVAT Credit account, as required under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner- Mandali was facing a financial crisis since long and had become a sick Mandali. Thereafter, the State of Gujarat came out with a revival plan for the sick co-operative sug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nordinate delay of 98 days in filing the appeal. It appears that since no explanation was tendered, the CESTAT, by an order dated 19.09.2017, dismissed the Misc. Application for condonation of delay due to failure to file the affidavit and, consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. 4.6. It is the case of the petitioner - Mandali that the Mandali remained closed from 2016-2017 to 2020-2021 due to financial crisis and hence the order passed by the CESTAT could not be attended to for further course of action. However, in the year 2022, the Gujarat Tribal Development Department came out with a revival plan vide Circular dated 15.09.2022 and the petitioner - Mandali tried to revive its business operations. The officers of respondent nos. 3 and 4 started recovery proceedings and it is the case of the petitioner that at that time the petitioner came to know about the appeal having been dismissed on the ground of delay. 4.7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Misc. Application for restoration of the Misc. Application for condonation of delay on 01.10.2024 and explained the reasons for delay that the Mandali was closed due to financial crisis. The CESTAT rejected the same on the gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce, vide order dated 19.09.2017, the said appeal came to be dismissed. The petitioner - Mandali thereafter went into slumber and did not do anything and all of a sudden, after a period of seven (7) years, an application for restoration being Excise Miscellaneous Application (ROA) No. 11193 of 2024 was filed before the CESTAT and the only explanation put forward before the CESTAT was that the Mandali was financially struggling and was closed down and hence could not keep track of its proceedings before the CESTAT. 9. It is interesting to note that the Mandali was already represented by an advocate in all the proceedings. However, neither the advocate nor the petitioner was vigilant enough to pursue the proceedings of Excise Appeal No. 10587 of 2016 in which there was a delay of 98 days. Thus, Excise Appeal No. 10587 of 2016 was belatedly filed having a delay of 98 days and, when the CESTAT directed the petitioner - Mandali to file an appropriate response explaining the delay, nothing was done. Hence, the CESTAT was constrained to dismiss the appeal vide order dated 19.09.2017. The order dated 19.09.2017 reflects that no one remained present on behalf of the petitioner despite ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount by the appellant - Mandali, the CESTAT condoned the delay. These are vital distinguishing features in the present petition. 11. We may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh vs. Union of India, 2023 (10) S.C.C. 531, wherein the Supreme Court has revisited the power of the High Court in condoning delay while examining the expression "sufficient cause". The Apex Court has set aside the order passed by the High Court condoning the delay of 479 days. It is held as under : "30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. 31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered....