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

1991 (1) TMI 312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have been filed within 3 months viz. on or before 1-6-1990. The appeal was actually filed on 20-6-1990 which meant a delay of 19 days beyond the normal period of limitation of three months. The respondents have filed a cross-objection attacking the very basis or maintainability of the appeal. Accordingly, it is necessary to deal with the same before considering the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the Cross-Objection it has been contended that an appeal by the Department against the order of the Collector (Appeals) can be submitted by the authorised officer only when the Collector has directed the authorised officer to appeal on his behalf to the Tribunal against such order. Further, according to Rule 9(2) of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f documents called from the respondents was not considered as sufficient cause to condone the delay. It has, therefore, been urged that on these preliminary points the appeal may be dismissed as not maintainable and also on grounds of time-bar. 3. When the matter was posted for hearing, Shri M.N. Biswas learned S.D.R. appeared for the applicant Collector. He adopted the reasoning given in the condonation application. He also referred to the Chart showing the details of processing at different stages. He referred to the cases cited in the application where delays had been condoned. He pleaded that the delay may be condoned and the appeal heard on merits. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al. The routine office procedures and discussions have taken time and this is not sufficient cause to justify the delay. He submitted that their claim for refund is legitimately due to them following the favourable order of the Collector (Appeals) and it should not be withheld because of the appeal. The appeal, apart from being not sustainable on merits, is liable to be dismissed on the preliminary grounds of lack of proper authorisation and of time-bar. 5. We have considered the submissions. We find there is an authorisation from the Collector of Central Excise, specifically for this appeal in favour of Shri G.C. Sarkar, Assistant Collector. The signature of the Collector, Shri T.V. Sairam is dated 8-2-1990 which is obviously a mistake a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ays and was condoned by the Hon ble Delhi High Court holding that the facts disclosed explain the delay in filing the appeal. In view of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185, they found sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The delay in the present case is of 19 days. The date chart has been given showing the details of action taken from 18-5-1990 to 20-6-1990. The time-limit had expired on 1-6-1990. The details shown indicate that this time was taken for discussions and taking decision and getting the appeal papers ready. Some delay was caused due to the xerox machine being out of order. During the above-mentioned period from 18-5-1990 to 20-6-1990 there we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Supreme Court the delay was condoned taking an overall view and possibility of condition, prevalent as stated by the appellants. Likewise, the Bombay High Court had condoned a delay of 16 days in the case of Chloride Industries v. Union of India reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 318 as it was not due to negligence or neglect because of certain circumstances beyond the control of the petitioners. The reasons though observed to be not very cogent were nevertheless factors which cannot be said to be totally irrelevant. The delay was not gross but of 16 days. Taking note of the weighty observations of the Supreme Court in the Anantnag Katiji 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (SC) case the delay was condoned. We, thus, find that there are numerous decisions for .....

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