2005 (5) TMI 65 - HC - Central Excise

Application by department for condonation of delay of about one year on ground that officers were transferring frequently revenue plea is that transfer of officer caused communication gap between the officials and the counsel held that averments made by revenue in the application are vague - nothing to show who was the officer dealing with the matter and when he was transferred since amount involved is huge for public exchequer cavalier attitude of revenue is deprecated

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the High Court.

In this case, the primary issue revolves around the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the High Court. The appellant sought condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, stating that the appeal was filed after a delay of about 186 days from the expiry of the limitation period. However, upon examination of the records, it was found that the appeal was actually filed after a delay of about one year, not 186 days as contended. The court noted discrepancies in the appellant's submissions regarding the filing date, leading to skepticism about the accuracy of the information provided.

Another issue highlighted in the judgment is the reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant attributed the delay to frequent transfers of officers dealing with the matter, resulting in a communication gap between the counsel and the department. However, the court found the reasons cited in the application for condonation of delay to be vague and lacking in specifics. The court criticized the casual approach taken by the appellant in handling the matter, especially considering the significant amount involved from the public exchequer.

Furthermore, the court expressed dissatisfaction with the appellant's filing of a false affidavit in an attempt to reduce the period of delay in filing the appeal. This act was viewed as an attempt to mislead the court and manipulate the condonation process. The court emphasized the seriousness of filing false affidavits and warned against such misconduct in the future. Ultimately, due to the discrepancies in the appellant's submissions, the court declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the application. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of diligence and accuracy in legal proceedings, cautioning against careless or deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of the judicial process.