2016 (4) TMI 1029 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of the revisions application - Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are objecting to the contentions of the petitioner that these respondents had tried to delay the proceedings before the trial Court - Held that - these objections pertain to the maintainability of the revision application and merits of the issues involved and not to the application filed for condonation of delay, as such. These objections can be kept open so that they can be decided on their own merits at appropriate time. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Revision application be registered and disposed of in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of revenue

Summary

Issues involved: Delay in filing revision application, condonation of delay, maintainability of revision application, objections on merits of issues involved

Delay in filing revision application:
The judgment addresses a delay of about 10 months in filing the revision application. The court notes that the reasons for the delay were not explained in a specific manner in terms of dates or months. However, it considers the petitioner, a Government Department, and acknowledges the functioning of government departments. The court emphasizes the absence of malafides on the part of the petitioner and the lack of gross negligence or deliberate delay. It also highlights that the impugned order indicated a submission by the respondents for a suitable order, indicating no injustice caused to them. The objections raised by the respondents mainly focus on the maintainability of the revision application and the merits of the issues involved, rather than the delay itself.

Condonation of delay:
Despite the delay not being explained in detail, the court, after considering the reasons provided for condoning the delay, finds no malafides on the part of the petitioner. It takes into account the nature of the petitioner as a Government Department and the need to consider the functioning of such entities. The court emphasizes the absence of gross negligence or deliberate delay and the lack of injustice caused to the respondents. The objections raised by the respondents primarily relate to the maintainability of the revision application and the merits of the issues involved.

Maintainability of revision application:
The court addresses the objections raised by respondent nos. 1 and 2 regarding the maintainability of the revision application. It notes that the objections pertain to the maintainability of the application and the merits of the issues involved, rather than the application for condonation of delay. The court decides to keep these objections open for future consideration and resolution on their own merits at the appropriate time.

Objections on merits of issues involved:
The judgment mentions objections raised by respondent nos. 1 and 2 concerning the maintainability of the revision application and the contentions made by the petitioner regarding the respondents' attempts to delay the proceedings before the trial court. These objections are related to the maintainability of the revision application and the merits of the issues involved. The court decides to keep these objections open for further consideration and resolution in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed and set aside, and the revision application is directed to be registered and disposed of in accordance with the law. The objections on maintainability and the submissions made by the petitioner are kept open for future resolution based on their merits.