Purbanchal Cement Limited vs. The Commissioner Central Excise And Service Tax

Held

The Court condoned the delay of 94 days in filing the Central Excise Appeal. The Court perused the averments made in the application and noted that the respondent did not oppose the application. The explanation for the delay, attributing it to the previous counsel's retention of records, was accepted. The Court found that the appeal was filed by engaging the present counsel after the records were returned. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the Interlocutory Application (I.A.) stood disposed of. The Registry was directed to register the appeal and list it for consideration after three weeks.

Facts

Purbanchal Cement Limited, the petitioner, filed an application under Section 35G(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking condonation of a delay of 94 days in filing a Central Excise Appeal. The appeal was intended to be filed against an order passed by the Commissioner Central Excise and Service Tax, Guwahati Division. The petitioner explained the delay by stating that the initially engaged counsel retained the records from October 10, 2018, to March 7, 2019, and returned them without filing the appeal. The present counsel filed the appeal on April 4, 2019. The respondent, represented by the learned standing counsel, GST, did not oppose the application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 94 days in filing the Central Excise Appeal should be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the petitioner. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of Section 35G(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the principles governing condonation of delay. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the delay was attributable to the previous counsel's conduct in retaining the records and failing to file the appeal, and that the present counsel filed the appeal promptly upon receiving the records. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, represented by the learned standing counsel, GST, did not oppose the application for condonation of delay.