2011 (1) TMI 739 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - The dispute in the present case, is, regarding the date of communication of the order of BIFR dated 5-12-2006 to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik. Notarized copy of the order of the BIFR dated 5-12-2006 was served on the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik on 13-12-2006 - There is no dispute that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik had received notarized copy of the order of BIFR on 13-12-2006, and authenticated copy of the order of BIFR on 2-1-2007 - receiving notarized copy of the order on 13-12-2006 and authenticated copy of 2-1-2007 loses significance once 12-12-2006 is considered to be the relevant date for computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal - in the facts of the present case, though the inaccurate statement contained in the application seeking condonation of delay does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay, in view of the material now brought on record, we uphold the order of AAIFR in condoning the delay of seven days in filing the appeal In the present case, admittedly after receipt of the authenticated copy of the order on 2-1-2007, decision was taken on 29-1-2007 to accept the order of BIFR, however, subsequently on reconsideration it was decided to file an appeal against the order of the BIFR and accordingly the appeal was filed on 2-2-2007 - Held that the inaccurate statement contained in the application seeking condonation of delay did not amount to showing sufficient cause and the AAIFR was not justified in condoning the delay without considering the inaccurate statement contained in the application seeking condonation of delay - Writ petition is dismissed

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1989.
2. Interpretation of the statutory timeline for filing an appeal.
3. Consideration of sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
4. Compliance with court directives in passing orders.
5. Examination of inaccurate statements in the application seeking condonation of delay.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the condonation of a seven-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1989. The Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) had to determine if the delay was justified based on the statutory provisions.

2. The interpretation of the statutory timeline for filing the appeal was crucial. Section 25 of the Act mandates that an appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of communication of the order. The dispute arose regarding the date of communication of the order from the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik.

3. The AAIFR had to consider whether there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The respondents cited reasons such as delayed receipt of the order and lack of awareness as grounds for the delay. The court analyzed these reasons and assessed if they constituted valid justifications for missing the filing deadline.

4. Compliance with court directives was another critical aspect. The petitioners contended that the AAIFR did not consider their objections and violated the court's previous order. The court had to evaluate whether the AAIFR had appropriately addressed the points raised by both parties as directed.

5. An examination of inaccurate statements in the application seeking condonation of delay was essential. The court scrutinized the reasons provided for the delay and assessed the accuracy of the statements made. The presence of false statements and their impact on the decision to condone the delay were key considerations in the judgment.

In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to condone the delay based on new material presented during the proceedings. Despite acknowledging inaccuracies in the initial application, the court found sufficient cause to justify the delay in filing the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing valid reasons for delays and emphasized the need for officers to fulfill their duties diligently.

← Previous Next →