9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) should have condoned the delay and he was not justified in rejecting the appeal as barred by time - Appeal is allowed by way of remand X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould have given an opportunity to the appellant to remove the defect, moreover, an application for condonation of delay may be oral also. 8. The power given to the Commissioner (Appeals) for condonation of delay of 30 days is akin to the power given to court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. With reference to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it has been held that formal application for condonation of delay is not necessary. It has been held in Firm Kaura Mal Bishan Dass v. Firm Mathura Dass Atma Ram, AIR 1959 Punjab 646 that merely because there was no written application filed by the appellant is hardly a sufficient ground for refusing him the relief, if he is otherwise entitled to it. 9. To the same effect is M/s. Marklan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. 14. Ultimately, in para 14, it has been stated that it must be ' remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put-forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. It has been laid down that in such matters, approach of the court should be justice oriented. The words "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are sufficient cause, we, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Allahabad.
20. In view of above, we hold that on the facts and circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have condoned the delay and he was not justified in rejecting the appeal as barred by time.
21. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed and the matter is restored back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear and decide the appeal on merits. The orders dated 1-3-2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and 25-11-2004 passed by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi are hereby set aside.
22. No order as to cost. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
