2006 (7) TMI 695 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues involved: Application for condonation of delay in filing the reference application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the reference application, citing the restructuring of the Customs Commissionerate as the reason for the delay.
2. The impugned order by the CEGAT was received by the petitioner on 3rd January, 2003, and the application for condonation of delay was filed on 27th January, 2004, more than a year later.
3. The petitioner sought comments from the concerned section on 17th February, 2003, and after a gap of six months, further comments were sought on 25th August, 2003. An appeal was decided to be filed on 3rd September, 2003.
4. Subsequently, on 15th October, 2006, it was decided to approach the Law Ministry for the appointment of a Government Counsel, and the application for condonation of delay was filed on 27th January, 2004.
5. The petitioner, entitled to 180 days for filing the reference application, took an additional 215 days to file it. The respondent's counsel highlighted that the authorities seeking and furnishing comments were in the same building.
6. Despite the reasons provided, the court noted a gap of six months without any explanation. Previous similar applications for condonation of delay had been rejected by the court, following the decisions in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Bluemax Sport Wear and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Ms. Emm Ess Electricals.
7. In line with the precedents, the court rejected the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of timely filing and adherence to statutory timelines.