Shubham Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Sonia Gokani, J.�Leave to amend. Challenging the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad ("CESTAT" for short), the present Tax Appeal is preferred raising the following substantial question of law for our consideration:-

"Whether the CESTAT committed an error in not considering the reasonable explanation put forth for condonation of delay of 53 days caused in filing the appeal?"

We have heard learned counsel Shri D.K. Trivedi for the appellant, and at our request, learned senior counsel Shri RJ. Oza has appeared for and on behalf of the Department.

Having considered the submissions of both the sides, it could be noticed that the Tribunal chose not to condone the delay of 53 days in preferring the appeal on the ground that no cause was pointed out for such condonation. The Tribunal also was of the opinion that the adjournment sought for, for the first time, came to be granted and matter was directed to be listed on 30th December, 2013. However, for the second time also adjournment application was preferred by the advocate on record, and therefore, the Tribunal considering the fact that application for condonation of delay was filed on 30th July, 2013 could not be delayed further despite the application of adjournment proceeded with the matter and on merit, rejected the same.

Before us, it is being pointed out that the adjournment application did speak about ill-health and personal inconvenience of the learned counsel representing the petitioner before the Tribunal. Having found that the application tendered before the Tribunal did explain sufficiency of the reason for seeking adjournment and the delay of 53 days having been sufficiently explained before us, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the present Tax Appeal is allowed. Tribunal is held to have committed an error in not condoning the delay. Tax Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.