2017 (10) TMI 1664 - HC - Central Excise

Rejection of appeal filed by the petitioner-assessee as barred by limitation of 184 days - condonation of dealy in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT - In view of the restriction on the respondent authority by a statutory provision even the genuine cases for condonation of delay cannot be considered and that is why such delays in filing the appeal have been condoned by this Court in some cases - reliance placed in Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2017 (1) TMI 872 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT where it was held that this Court is of the opinion that the reasons assigned by the petitioner-assessee appear to be of sufficient and the delay deserved to be condoned by the Commissioner of Appeals. However in view of the statutory limit on his powers this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction is of the opinion that the said delay deserves to be condoned. Since the present case is also of the same nature the present petition is also disposed of in same terms and condoning the delay the appeal is restored to the said respondent-Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mysore for deciding the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The petitioner-assessee will however have to comply with the other conditions for maintaining such appeal and this order will cover only the limitation aspect only.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal beyond prescribed period of 90 days.

Analysis:
The judgment involves the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the illness of a company official and should be condoned. The Court considered the restriction imposed by a statutory provision, which limited the authority's power to condone delays. The Court referred to previous cases where delays were condoned due to genuine reasons. In this case, the Court decided to condone the delay and restore the appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for a decision on merits, subject to compliance with other conditions for maintaining the appeal. The judgment emphasized that the order only covered the limitation aspect and did not impose any costs on the petitioner.

The judgment referred to a previous decision in the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union of India, where the delay in filing an appeal was contested. The Commissioner of Appeals argued that they had no power to condone delays beyond 30 days as per Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner contended that the original order was not properly delivered to the company, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner sought condonation of the delay based on the illegality of the adjudication order. The Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, decided to condone the delay of 184 days and directed the Commissioner of Appeals to decide the appeal on merits within three months. The judgment highlighted the importance of giving discretion to appellate authorities to condone delays caused by sufficient reasons.

In the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union of India, the Court also referred to a Division Bench decision in M/s. Practice Strategic Communications India Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Service Tax. The Division Bench decision emphasized that the Court could interfere with orders if they were passed without jurisdiction, resulted in gross injustice, or exceeded the limits of jurisdiction. The judgment in the present case followed a similar approach, condoning the delay and remitting the appeal back to the Commissioner of Appeals for a decision on merits. The Court stressed the need for appellate authorities to have the discretion to condone delays caused by genuine reasons and ensure that appeals are decided on merits in accordance with the law.