RANCHI, India, Feb. 19 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 19:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. I.A. No.3464 of 2025 seeks condonation of delay of 63 days for instituting this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the said Act')

3. However, learned counsel for the respondent points out that when this appeal was filed 63 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the same was not accompanied by any application seeking condonation of delay. Upon this defect being pointed out by the Registry on 4th April, 2024, such application was filed only on 18th March, 2025.

4. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this appeal could be regarded as lawfully presented only on 18th March, 2025 after a delay of 428 days. He submitted that there was no explanation for this delay of 428 days and therefore, the delay condonation application should be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr. reported in (2000) 7 SCC 372 to submit that the filing of a condonation delay application along with a time barred appeal is not a mandatory requirement. He submitted that such failure can always be cured by subsequently filing a delay condonation application as was done in the present case. He submitted that once such application is filed, it relates to the date of presentation of the appeal and therefore, there is more than sufficient explanation for 63 days' delay in instituting the appeal.

6. Without prejudice, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the delay is taken as 428 days, the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application explains that almost three officials were transferred in the interregnum and on account of communication gaps, such application seeking condonation of delay remained to be filed on record. He submitted that even this constitutes sufficient cause for the entire period of 428 days, which may be condoned.

7. Instead of entering the controversy as to whether the delay in this case should be construed as 63 days or 428 days, we have proceeded on the premise that the delay is 428 days. Still, upon perusal of delay condonation application and the supplementary affidavit, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning this delay.

8. Firstly, this a case where the appeal was actually filed about 63 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. For these 63 days, the explanation offered undoubtedly constitutes sufficient cause. Secondly, after the Registry pointed out the defect, a formal application seeking condonation of delay was filed. There was, some delay in filing this application. However, in such matters, it is not merely the length of the delay but the quality of the explanation offered that is crucial.

9. The supplementary affidavit indicates how three officials were transferred. It also indicates that the matter was missed due to communication gaps, resulting in the failure to file a formal application for condonation of delay.

10. Upon cumulative consideration of all these circumstances, we are satisfied that a sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of even this delay of 428 days.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqFy2oXhMd8cymMELk0u%2BI%2BTREKhCvdSTfKzVLGq6FwOK&caseno=T.A./3/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010097342024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.