The Commissioner of Central Excise vs Ultramarine & Pigments Ltd.

R. Sudhakar, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed as against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, dismissing the petition filed to condone the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal, was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Is the Tribunal right in dismissing the petition for condoning the delay, which throws the meritorious matter out at the threshold level and denies justice without considering the judgment of the apex court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, and several other decisions of the apex court, which had held that liberal approach should be made while dealing with condonation of delay petition?

Is the Tribunal right in dismissing the petition for condonation of delay when it is a settled principle of law that each and every matter should be considered independently on its own merits?"

We are pained to state that the Judicial Member would take such a strong view on a delay of 23 days by the Department, more particularly when it has been specifically stated that the Committee of Commissioners were engaged in Budget work, which is also equally important as it relates to an affairs of the State.

We find that the reasonable cause for delay as explained by the Department is justified. In any event, we find that the delay is marginal and the Department is serious in pursuing the matter at the earliest point of time. We are not commenting on the plea of frequent power cuts, which factor need not be questioned, as it is apparent that we are suffering from shortage of power for a long number of years. We find that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the application on the plea of delay of 23 days.

In the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, , it has been held as under:

"The expression ''sufficient cause'' employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts.

....

When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay."

It is to be noted that Mr. Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that he has no objection to condone the delay.

Taking note of the meager delay which is explained and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court as above, we are inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal stands set aside and the delay stands condoned. The Tribunal is directed to take up the appeal and dispose of the same on merits, if otherwise in order.

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.