9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 528 - HC - Central ExciseCondonation of delay of 621 days in taking out the motion - HELD THAT - The Applicant was under the impression that the appeal would be numbered and it would come up for consideration in normal course. When the reorganization of the Appellant took place, after the introduction of Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 the papers regarding this appeal were transferred to Daman Commissionerate. It is at that point of time, on enquiry, the Applicant realized that the appeal was not numbered and it stood dismissed consequent to the order dated 17 March 2016 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master - On account of the above misunderstanding of the order dated 3 October 2016 passed by this Court, the Applicant could not take steps early to set aside the order dated 17 March 2016. We are satisfied with the reasons for the delay in filing this application - Notice of motion allowed.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing a motion to set aside an order due to non-removal of office objections.
Analysis: The judgment before the Bombay High Court pertains to a motion seeking condonation of a significant delay of 621 days in filing a motion to set aside an order dated 17 March 2016. The order in question was passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, dismissing the Applicant's appeal due to non-removal of office objections. Despite the service, no representation was made on behalf of the Respondent. The Applicant's affidavit supporting the motion highlighted that a previous order dated 3 October 2016 by the Court had allowed another motion by the Applicant, condoning a delay of 18 days in filing an appeal. This order also directed the Registry to number the appeal. The Applicant, under the impression that the appeal would be numbered and proceed in due course, only discovered during a reorganization after the introduction of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, that the appeal had not been numbered and was dismissed as per the earlier order of 17 March 2016. The Court, after considering the reasons presented in the affidavit, expressed satisfaction with the explanations provided for the delay in filing the current application. The Court also found the reasons for the failure to remove office objections in a timely manner to be satisfactory. Consequently, the Court allowed the notice of motion in accordance with the prayer clauses (a) and (b) presented by the Applicant.
|
