2013 (10) TMI 146 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of Delay Delay of 556 days Held that - The officials of the department for nothing sat tight over the matter and did not take any action bona fide for preferring the application Nothing has been produced to support that such opinions of various authorities and officials are needed - the counsel should be engaged for drafting and setting reference application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Actual action had been taken almost after more than one year unnecessarily wasting time - there has been again change of lawyer - These were unacceptable explanation Application of Condonation of Delay was dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for condonation of delay of approximately 556 days in preferring an appeal. The Court noted that despite several attempts to serve the respondents, their office could not be traced, making substituted service by advertisement impractical due to the insignificant tax amount involved. The Court scrutinized the explanations provided by the department and found that officials had not taken proactive steps to prefer the application. The Court expressed bewilderment over the unnecessary delay caused by obtaining multiple opinions from various authorities without substantial justification. It was observed that grounds of appeal were prepared by an Inspector instead of engaging lawyers promptly, leading to further delays. The engagement of counsel was delayed by more than a year, and subsequent postponements of conferences without valid reasons were deemed unacceptable by the Court.

The Court ultimately dismissed the application for condonation of delay, citing the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed due to the dismissal of the condonation application. The Court directed the urgent supply of a certified copy of the order to the parties upon compliance with necessary formalities. The judgment underscores the importance of timely and diligent legal actions, emphasizing the need for valid justifications in applications for condonation of delay to ensure the expeditious administration of justice.