9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 16th June, 1988. An application for condonation of delay and stay application duly supported with affidavits were also presented in the Delhi Registry on 9th January, 1989. In terms of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 the appeal has to be presented within three months from the date of communication of the order. Shri K. Kumar, the learned SDR has appeared on behalf of the applicant. Earlier the matter had come up for hearing on 27th January, 1989. Shri Kumar, the learned SDR had appeared on the said date and had requested for adjournment on the ground that he wanted to substantiate the grounds for condonation of delay and the matter was adjourned to 22nd February, 1989 and on 22nd February, 1989 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is negligence on the part of the applicants. The Revenue has not been able to explain the delay for the period 10th August, 1988 to 12th October, 1988. The last date for filing of the appeal was 16th September, 1988 and there was sufficient time with the appellant for the filing of the appeal. On the other hand the Respondents were very much vigilant for getting the consequential effect to the impugned order. He stated that the Respondents had addressed the following letters to the Revenue authorities: Date of the letter The authority to whom the letter was written Subject in brief 13-09-88 Asst. Collector of Customs, Refund Dept. Request for grant of refund 14-09-88 Asst. Collector o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri K. Kumar, the learned SDR again requested for the condonation of delay and stated that the file was mis-placed and that was the reason for not replying to the Respondents letters addressed to the Revenue authorities. Shri Kumar, the learned SDR has further argued that the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Tata Yodogawa Ltd. 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 (SC) does not lay down any ratio as no legal principles have been laid down. 4. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts are not disputed. It is also not disputed that there was a delay of 45 days. The relevant extracts from the application for condonation of delay is reproduced below: The appellant has preferred an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he applicant was taking up the filing of the appeal very casually. The learned SDR during the course of arguments, had explained the movement of the file. Even taking that there is no explanation for the delay from 10th August, 1988 to 12th October, 1988, whereas the limitation had already expired on 16th September, 1988. Till the last day of limitation, the appellant is not expected to explain his conduct. After the expiry of the limitation period the beneficiary of an order acquires substantial right and the appellant is expected to explain each and every day s delay. The facts of the present case are simllar to that of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 (SC) Para No. 4 of the said judgment is reproduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat because of the mere fact that the appellant is Government a liberal view cannot be taken. Para 27 from the said judgment is reproduced below: 27. 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 S. 5 of the Limitation Act should also be available to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le during all the time available to it. Considerations of bona fides or due diligence are always material and relevant when the Court is dealing with applications made under S.14 of the Limitation Act. In dealing with such applications the court is called upon to consider the effect of the combined provisions of Section 5 and 14. Therefore considerations which have been expressly made material and relevant by the provisions of Section 14 cannot to the same extent and in the same manner be invoked in dealing with application which fall to be decided only under Section 5 without reference to Section 14. The effect of the explanation is that if the party who has applied for extension of period shows that the delay was due to any of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
