Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (9) TMI 195

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emo of appeal dated 25-3-1987 was received in the Tribunal on 30-3-1987. The appeal is thus barred by limitation stipulated under sub-section (3) of Section 35B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1994 by 9 months and 6 days. Excluding the postal delay of 5 days between 25-3-1987 to 30-3-1987, it is barred by limitation by 9 months. 3. In the application for condonation of delay, which is supported by an affidavit sworn by Shri V.R. Gangurde, Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III, the officer authorised by the Collector to present appeal, it is submitted that the decision in the impugned order followed the ratio of CEGAT decision in Bakelite Hylam, Hyderabad. It was decided on 23-6-1986 not to file appeal against the Order-in-Appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ondonation of Delay and relied on a very recent decision of Supreme Court parties Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag Another v. Mst. Katiji Others [1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC)]. 5. Opposing Smt. Chander s contention, Shri K. Natarajan, Executive Vice-President of the respondent, submitted that the delay was not at all properly explained. He referred to a decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Bakelite Hylam v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1985 (22) ELT 879 = 1985 ECR 2334 and submitted that in view of this decision, it was not at all necessary for the appellant - Collector to have gone for the excessive enquiry which he claims to have made because there was a decision on the point and the decision would show that all nece .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it by lodging an appeal late. 2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3) Every day s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour s delay, every second s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4) When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being don .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality and Others (AIR 1972 SC 749), the Hon ble Supreme Court has held as under - Mr. D. Mukherji, learned Counsel for the first respondent, is certainly well-founded in his contention that the expression sufficient cause" cannot be construed too liberally, merely because the party in default is the Government. It is no doubt true that whether it is a Government or a private party, the provisions of law applicable are the same unless the statute itself makes any distinction. But it cannot also be gainsaid that the same consideration that will be shown by courts to a private party when he claims the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act should also be available to the State." 9. Smt. Chander .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tter after references were received from other Collectorates. We do not understand why this Collectorate should be interested in cases in other Collectorates. If in other Collectorates, a similar decision has been taken, nothing prevents these Collectorates from coming up in appeal to the Tribunal. Besides, we also fail to appreciate why a detailed enquiry as claimed was considered necessary. Even if it was necessary, nothing prevented the appellant from filing an appeal to the Tribunal in time or at the earliest and continuing to hold enquiry. The result of that enquiry, if considered necessary, could be brought on record of the Tribunal in accordance with law. Besides, no particulars about these 9 months have been given. From the applicat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates