9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order of Commissioner (Appeals) for delay in filing appeals and seeking condonation of delay. Analysis: The case involved a challenge to an order issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning excise duty demand and penalties. The petitioners had initially filed applications before the Settlement Commission, which were rejected on the ground of not filing appeals prior to the applications. Subsequently, the petitioners filed appeals with the Commissioner (Appeals), who held them to be time-barred. The petitioners then approached the High Court challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original order. The counsel for the petitioners relied on decisions from the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court to argue that provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable even when a Special Act prescribes a time limit. On the other hand, the Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government supported the orders of the appellate authority and the original order. The High Court examined the arguments presented and noted that the question of the applicability of the Limitation Act provisions did not need to be decided in this case. Referring to a previous decision by the Apex Court, the Court observed that the ends of justice could be met by allowing a belated appeal with an application for condonation of delay. The Additional Standing Counsel contended that the bar of limitation under Section 35 of the Act prevented condonation of delay by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Court found this objection to be misconceived in the present case. It noted that the petitioners had diligently pursued their case before the Settlement Commission within the required time frame. The Court acknowledged that the petitioners had already paid a significant portion of the demanded duty, further supporting their case. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, the High Court set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and directed the Commissioner to entertain the petitioners' appeals without raising objections about the delay in filing. The Court made the rule absolute in this regard, emphasizing that no costs were to be awarded. This judgment highlights the importance of considering the specific facts and actions of the parties in matters of delay in filing appeals and the application of limitation provisions in Special Acts.
|
