9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o condonation of delay, the reasons should be justifiable reasons and shall be in relation to the sufficient cause for condonation of delay – Delay not condoned - 2517/2008 - 457/2010-EX(PB) - Dated:- 10-5-2010 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri B.L. Soni, DR, for the Appellant. Shri A.S. Gill, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar (President)]. - Heard the learned DR for the applicant and learned advocate for the respondents. This is an application whereby the department without clearly admitting that there was a delay in filing the appeal, seeks indulgence of the Tribunal for condonation of delay in filing the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Superintendent (Review) addressed to Superintendent (Appeals) submitted that the letter clearly refers to non-availability of the official copy of the order-in-appeal and not that it had no knowledge of the order-in-appeal. In fact, the letter clearly refers to the number of the order-in-appeal, as well as the date thereof. The same clearly reveals that the office of Superintendent (Review) was fully aware of the order in question and he could have taken necessary steps for review of the order in terms of Section 35E without waiting for official copy of the order. 5. To a pertinent question to the representative of the department, as to whether there is any specific provision of law which discloses that the authorities can move ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Undoubtedly from the letter dated 18th July 2008 it is not known as to when such copy came in possession of the office of Superintendent (Review). But, certainly it can be said that the same must be pursuant to the copy of the order being made available to the office by the respondents, latest by 6th of May 2008. 7. When the matter in stay application in relation to the No. E/S/2524 of 2008 came up for hearing on 27th March 2009 after hearing the parties and in view of specific objection raised by the learned advocate for the respondents following order came to be passed : "Dr. A.S. Gill, learned Counsel for the Respondent has preliminary objection that Revenue's appeal is barred by limitation. To this submission, learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record today by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Jammu. 10. Though, it is stated to be an affidavit, it is merely in the form of the comments with reference to paras of the affidavit dated 27th March 2010 filed by the respondents. It is pertinent to note that in spite of specific order by the Tribunal on 27th March 2009, that a delay condonation application is required to be supported by an affidavit, the so called affidavit filed today does not have verification clause. 11. Every statement in an affidavit needs to be made on oath. When such statements are required to be made on oath, it is necessary for the respondents to disclose the source of information based on which, the statements of facts are made in the affi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er prior to 18th July 2008. 13. Condonation of delay is not a matter of right, it is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the authority before whom the parties are required to approach within the prescribed time and failing which are required to justify the delay with sufficient cause. Obviously, therefore, the discretion has to be exercised judiciously. For that purpose, the records must disclose sufficient cause for condonation of delay. When the records apparently reveal that the party approaching beyond the period of limitation had sufficient knowledge of the contents of the order which was necessary to frame the grounds of challenge to the order, it can hardly be said that the party had disclosed sufficient cause for delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is same for the private parties as well as for the Government. We are aware that in Government offices, many a times, on account of carefree attitude on the part of the Government officers, which is commonly known as "whose what's go?", the matters get delayed. Apart from carefree attitude, there could be various other reasons for the same also. However, when it comes to condonation of delay, the reasons should be justifiable reasons and shall be in relation to the sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and not otherwise. 16. In the case in hand, we do not find any sufficient cause having been made out for the delay in filing the appeal. What is surprising is that, the department does not want to admit that there is a delay and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
