9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1990 (10) TMI 171 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Benefit of Removal of Difficulties Order, Negligence on the part of the appellant. Analysis: The case involves an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad against an order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. The appeal was received late, and the appellant sought condonation of delay based on various grounds. The appellant argued that there was sufficient cause for the delay, citing the need to review the order, the creation of the Tribunal, and previous judgments where delays were condoned. The respondent, however, contended that there was negligence on the part of the appellant and referenced judgments highlighting limitations on review rights. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. The Tribunal noted the factual timeline of events leading to the late filing of the appeal and discussed the legal principles regarding the condonation of delay. The appellant's argument for the benefit of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1982 was considered, but it was found that the delay was not adequately explained. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's stance on sufficient cause and diligence required for condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for a party to justify each day's delay after the expiration of the limitation period. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument regarding the starting date of the limitation period and referenced a judgment affirming that the right to revision without limitation ceases when such powers are withdrawn. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not prevented by sufficient cause for the late filing of the appeal. As a result, the original and supplementary applications for condonation of delay were dismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue authorities was dismissed as time-barred, without delving into its merits. The cross-objection was also dismissed as moot due to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
