Facts of the Case

This is a delay-condonation order of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, in proceedings concerning a pre-deposit condition imposed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). This is a Central Excise/Service Tax matter; it does not involve any GST question, though the respondent's affidavit was filed by an Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, reflecting only that department's current administrative structure.

The applicant, M/s Vatan Textile Limited, had originally filed Writ Petition No. 1346 of 2016 challenging a CESTAT order dated 30.03.2015 that imposed a condition of pre-depositing 25% of the demand as a precondition for appeal. The High Court dismissed that writ petition on 24.11.2018. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court through two Special Leave Petitions, which the Apex Court allowed on 22.04.2019, remanding the writ petition back to the High Court with a direction that the petitioner draw the High Court's attention to the relevant provisions and seek appropriate directions, and that the High Court decide the matter afresh on merits. Following this, the applicant filed a Civil Application seeking amendment, which was permitted to be withdrawn on 18.04.2023 with liberty to file a comprehensive review application instead. This sequence of events resulted in a delay of 1,626 days in eventually filing the review application, which the applicant sought to have condoned.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the extraordinary delay of 1,626 days in filing the review application, attributable to the intervening Supreme Court remand, a subsequent amendment application, and the COVID-19 period, ought to be condoned.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The delay arose from the sequence of proceedings before the Supreme Court (which remanded the matter on 22.04.2019) and this Court's subsequent order dated 18.04.2023 permitting withdrawal of an amendment application with liberty to file a review application, and was further compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic period.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Department, through its Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Aurangabad, contended that the grounds for delay were neither reasonable nor appropriate, and that no relevant supporting documents had been placed on record; it also addressed the merits and calculations relevant to the pre-deposit condition.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court clarified it was deciding only the delay-condonation application at this stage, deferring consideration of the review petition's merits to a later hearing with both parties.
  • It held that since the Supreme Court itself had condoned any delay in approaching it and remanded the matter, there was no delay to reckon with up to the date of the Supreme Court's order (22.04.2019).
  • For the subsequent period, though the Court was not inclined to give full weight to the COVID-19 justification (since there was a window of opportunity between April 2019 and the lockdown), it found that since the Supreme Court had specifically directed the High Court to reconsider the matter — a direction not acted upon promptly — a good ground for condonation existed, particularly since it directly concerned recovery from the public exchequer.
  • Balancing these considerations, the Court condoned the delay but directed the applicant to deposit costs of Rs. 10,000/- within three weeks as compensation for the resulting inconvenience, after which the review application would be registered and could proceed.

Important Clarification

This order only condones the delay in filing the review application on payment of costs — it does not decide, or express any view on, the merits of the underlying challenge to the CESTAT's pre-deposit condition. The review application itself remains to be heard and decided separately. The matter concerns Central Excise/Service Tax pre-deposit requirements and has no bearing on GST law.

Sections Involved

  • Order XLVII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Review of judgment
  • Section 35F, Central Excise Act, 1944 — Pre-deposit condition for appeal (as applied via CESTAT proceedings)
  • Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 — Condonation of delay

Decision – In Favour of

The application for condonation of delay was allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- costs, without any decision on the merits of the review petition or the underlying pre-deposit dispute; the review application itself remains pending for consideration.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad
  • Case No.: Civil Application No. 8747 of 2023 in Review Application (Stamp) No. 16566 of 2023 in Writ Petition No. 1346 of 2016
  • Coram: Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Hon'ble Justice Abhay S. Waghwase
  • Date of Order: Reserved on 17 July 2023; Pronounced on 11 August 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.