9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being a Govt. department, the matter be considered leniently in view - Held that:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd. - [2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that COD application by Govt. dept. cannot be done mechanically merely because the Govt. or its want was party before the Court and in absence of plausible and acceptable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-II. 2. The appellant received the impugned order on 11.01.2012 and has filed the appeal on 12.12.2012. Normal period of filing an appeal is three months from the date of receipt of the order, which expired on 10.04.2012. Thus there is a delay of eight months in filing the appeal. The reason given is that the appellant being a Division of Indian Railways, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the court that the appellant was prevented from filing the appeal within the time limit prescribed. The hon'ble apex Court held as follows:- It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plead that there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide , and liberal construction has to be adopted to advance substantial justice. 4. In the present case, we find that the argument advanced for the delay is purely bureaucratic red-tape which is not satisfactory to this Bench. Accordingly, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
