9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 281 - AT - Central ExciseCondonation of delay of 1191 days in filing the appeal - satisfactory justification for delay not provided - HELD THAT - On going through the application, satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal, is not found. Learned counsel is also not able to provide any satisfactory reason to explain the delay. It is settled law that for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the delay needs to be explained to the satisfaction of the appellate authority. Reliance can be placed in the case of OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL VERSUS LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. There are no justification in this application seeking condonation of delay of 1191 days in filing the appeal - appeal dismissed.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal
Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application for condonation of delay of 1191 days in filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The applicant sought condonation of the substantial delay, but during the hearing, no satisfactory explanation was provided for the delay. The Member (Technical) noted that the delay was not adequately explained, as required by settled law. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Post master General, it was emphasized that the delay must be justified to the satisfaction of the appellate authority for condonation to be granted. The court highlighted that the law of limitation applies to all parties, including the government, and cannot be condoned merely due to the government's involvement in the case. In a separate judgment referenced in the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified the distinction between the appellate jurisdiction and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution concerning the prosecution of Review Proceedings as a cause for delay. The court stressed that the test of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay is individualistic and discretionary, with no standard or objective criteria. Each case must be examined on its unique merits to determine if the delay is properly explained. Furthermore, the judgment referred to observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in previous cases such as Ram Lal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. and Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, emphasizing that even after showing sufficient cause, condonation of delay is not a matter of right but a discretionary jurisdiction of the court. The court must consider all relevant facts and the diligence of the party before deciding on condonation. The judgment reiterated that the courts should not condone delays without sufficient cause, as it would undermine the legislative intent behind limitation periods. In conclusion, the Member (Technical) dismissed the application for condonation of delay, rendering the appeal not maintainable due to the lack of adequate justification for the substantial delay in filing. The judgment underscores the importance of demonstrating sufficient cause for delay and the discretionary nature of condonation decisions by the courts.
|
