2023 (7) TMI 1062 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing this application - exact number of days in filing the application, also not stated in application - HELD THAT - It will be too late for the appellant to take umbrage under Rule 7, more particularly, when they were served at an interlocutory stage in the year 2007 itself when the prayer for stay made by the department was refused. Further reference has also been made to Rule 9 which relates to the notice for filing of paper book. From the conduct of the applicant/respondent, it is clearly seen that they were not diligent in prosecuting the matter and they have come out with such an application at such a belated stage without even specifically mentioning as to the exact number of days in filing the application, in the application states, delay, if any, in filing the instant application for recalling may be also condoned. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Delay in filing application for recalling and recalling the judgment and order dated 24th February, 2023 in CEXA 3 of 2007 and restoration of the appeal.

The judgment addressed the issue of delay in filing the application for recalling the judgment and order dated 24th February, 2023 in CEXA 3 of 2007 and restoring the appeal. The Court emphasized that the limitation needed to be computed from the date the judgment was received by the appellant, not from the date of the recovery notice issued by the Department. The judgment was passed based on an earlier order in CEXA No.4 of 2007 against a common order passed by the Tribunal.

The legal representatives for the respondent Department highlighted that the appeal was entertained in 2007, and an application for interim relief was dismissed after notice to the assessee. The matter was pending before the Court and subsequently listed, but as no one appeared, the Court considered the matter on its merits and rendered a finding.

The judgment also delved into the rules of the High Court at Calcutta, particularly Rule 7, which mandates the preparation and filing of a paper book within three months after admission of the appeal or receipt of the statement of the case. The Rule provides provisions for the respondent to prepare and file the paper book in case of non-compliance. The appellant was criticized for not diligently prosecuting the matter and bringing the application at a belated stage without specifying the exact number of days of delay. Referring to Rule 9 regarding notice for filing the paper book, the Court concluded that the appellant's conduct showed a lack of diligence, leading to the dismissal of the application for recalling the judgment.