9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.P. Asthana, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Verma, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER The applicant M/s. Cosmos Casting India Ltd. along with his appeal has filed the instant application seeking condonation of delay of 364 days in filing of appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts relating to disposal of application are that impugned order-in-appeal was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 23-5-2011. Copy of the order was admittedly received by the Excise officer of the applicant company on 30-5-2011 and appeal has been filed after a delay of 364 days on 28-8-2012. 3. Shri L.P. Asthana, ld. Advocate has submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal is neither mala fide nor intentional. The delay has occurred for the reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicue up sit fini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant, the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss. From the above it is evident that for the disposal of the application for condonation of delay, the relevant factor for consideration is the explanation given by the party concerned and duration of delay is of not much consequence. 6. In the instant case, the explanation of the appellant for delay is that the Excise officer of the company misplaced the order-in-appeal and failed to inform about the same to responsible officer of the company. This explanation appears to be reasona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
