1996 (3) TMI 133 - SC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, alternative remedy of appeal, bank guarantee validity.

Delay in filing appeal: The order of the Collector (Appeals) was rendered on October 20, 1989. Instead of filing the appeal to the Tribunal, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court on November 17, 1989. An interim order was made by the High Court on April 11, 1990, directing refund of the amount claimed by the appellant on condition of furnishing a bank guarantee. The writ petition was disposed of on January 17, 1994 by the High Court under a consent order, which dismissed the petition on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy of appeal. The appeal was presented before the Tribunal on April 20, 1994, with a delay of about three months after January 17, 1994. The delay was not satisfactorily explained, but considering the circumstances, the Supreme Court opined that the appeal could have been admitted by the Tribunal, which possesses the power to condone the delay. The Court allowed the appeal and directed the Tribunal to entertain it without dismissing it on the ground of limitation.

Condonation of delay: The Supreme Court held that the delay in filing the appeal could have been condoned by resorting to the principle underlying Section 14. Despite the unsatisfactorily explained delay of about three months, the Court emphasized that the Tribunal has the power to condone such delays and should have admitted the appeal considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

Alternative remedy of appeal: The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of the availability of the alternative remedy of appeal. The appellant had initially filed a writ petition instead of directly approaching the Tribunal, leading to the subsequent delay in filing the appeal. The Court highlighted the importance of pursuing the appropriate legal remedies and avoiding unnecessary delays in the judicial process.

Bank guarantee validity: The bank guarantee furnished by the appellant was stated to be still alive and valid. The appellant's counsel confirmed that the bank guarantee would be maintained until the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. The Court directed that the bank guarantee should be kept alive pending the appeal before the Tribunal and subject to any orders passed by the Tribunal in that regard.