2005 (5) TMI 78 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Incorrect affidavits filed by the Appellant.
3. Lack of promptitude in processing the appeal.
4. Allegations of frequent transfers and communication gap.
5. Delay in re-filing the appeal under Section 35H of the Act.
6. Justification for delay and false averments in the application for condonation of delay.
7. Monitoring and urgency in handling the case.
8. Casual approach by the Appellant and protection of litigant interests.
9. Misleading the Court by filing a false affidavit.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court notes the sorry state of affairs revealed in the case, with incorrect affidavits filed by the Appellant. It is highlighted that the appeal was filed well beyond the six-month limitation period, with false averments in the application for condonation of delay regarding the filing date. The Court questions the reasons cited for the delay, emphasizing the lack of specific details on transfers and communication gaps, and the failure to process the appeal promptly.

Furthermore, the judgment scrutinizes the handling of the case, noting the lack of urgency and monitoring in processing the appeal. The Court expresses dissatisfaction with the casual and cavalier approach of the Appellant, emphasizing the importance of protecting litigant interests and maintaining seriousness in legal matters. The judgment criticizes the Appellant for setting up a false narrative about a loss to the public exchequer, highlighting the lack of interest and seriousness displayed by the Appellant in pursuing the litigation promptly.

Moreover, the Court addresses the issue of misleading the Court by filing a false affidavit, deeming it intolerable under any circumstances. As a result, the Court dismisses the application for condonation of delay, imposing costs on the Appellant for harassment caused and misleading the Court with a false affidavit. The Appellant is directed to pay costs to the Respondent and the Delhi Legal Services Authority within one month, with the option to recover the costs from the officer(s) responsible for the delay. The judgment emphasizes the need for vigilance in legal matters and protection of litigant interests against casual approaches and false narratives.