M/S Vardhman Products vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the dismissal of the condonation application by the Appellate Tribunal, which was cryptic and lacked reasons, amounted to a substantial question of law. The Court noted that the grounds for condonation of delay presented by the petitioner were similar to those presented by M/s Sarvopari Impex Pvt. Ltd., for whom the delay was condoned by the same Appellate Tribunal. The Court found that the Appellate Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay for the present appellant and heard the appeal on its merits. Therefore, the appeal was allowed. The impugned order dated March 22, 2018, passed by the Appellate Tribunal was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner on its merits.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vardhman Products, filed an appeal before the Gauhati High Court against an order dated March 22, 2018, passed by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal). This order had dismissed the petitioner's application for condonation of delay before the Appellate Tribunal. The delay was in filing an appeal against an order dated June 30, 2014, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong. The revenue, represented by the Union of India and others, raised a preliminary objection that no substantial question of law was involved as the appeal concerned the dismissal of a condonation application. The petitioner argued that in a similar case involving the same impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal had condoned the delay for another party, M/s Sarvopari Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Key Issues

1. Whether there is a substantial question of law involved in an appeal against the dismissal of a condonation of delay application before the Appellate Tribunal, particularly when the Appellate Tribunal's order lacks reasons? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that a substantial question of law arises because the Appellate Tribunal's order dismissing the condonation application was cryptic and lacked reasons. Furthermore, the petitioner pointed to a precedent where the Appellate Tribunal had condoned the delay for another aggrieved party, M/s Sarvopari Impex Pvt. Ltd., who was affected by the same impugned order dated June 30, 2014. The grounds for condonation in both cases were similar, suggesting inconsistency in the Appellate Tribunal's approach. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that no substantial question of law was involved in the present appeal, as the appeal was solely directed against the dismissal of a condonation application, not the merits of the original dispute.