9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncentrate on the regular work for which the appellant was prevented to file the appeal before Tribunal duly and 414 days of delay occurred. It was also submitted that dismissal of the appeal without condonation of delay would cause prejudice to the appellant. But no substantial reason has been stated in the application for condonation of delay. Only on the above ground, the appellant draws misplaced sympathy of the court for condoning the delay of 414 days. 2. Revenue submits that the length of delay being 414 days without any reasonable cause shown in the application, following dilatory tactics, appellant has caused prejudice to Revenue to realize its legitimate dues. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records including the affidavit an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 with stay application, appellant has handicapped Revenue to realize its dues raised by impugned order dated 16.2.2012. Appellants approach as above has made the recovery proceedings to come to a halt and that also appears to be abusing process of law by the fiction raised as aforesaid today without being borne by the original application for condonation of delay filed at the time of filing of appeal. Without any good reason being explained against delay of 414 days, the appellant deserves to be unsuccessful in its effort, following the ratio laid down by apex court in the case of Ketian V. Parekh vs. Sp. Director of Enforcement: 2012 (275) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and its application fails. 7. Right of appeal to redress a wrong is a valuable ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llous and abuse of process of law following doctrine of resjudicata. Casual approach of appellant shows its scanty regard to law. Had there been bona fide, the appellant would have pursued its right duly. But that has not come to record. No vigilant attitude of appellant is visible from record. Length of deliberate delay has crippled appellant to be successful applicant without a bona fide cause today. Painting a gloomy picture, the appellant restrained Revenue to recovery process. It preferred to postpone its remedial measure without being vigilant and unmindful of the consequence of delay. Neither before limitation nor after that, it was conscious of its right of appeal. An indolent without being vigilant, losses its right. A man of prude ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no reasonable cause to condone the delay of 414 days. 12. We are conscious that if the appeal is thrown at the threshold, the appellant shall suffer. But the appellant having caused prejudice to other side, law of limitation shall not grant him any immunity today. We are also conscious that no one shall prefer to cause prejudice himself following the decision of the apex court in Collector Vs. Land Acquisition, Anantnag and other vs. Mst. Katiji and Others : 1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC). But this is not the case where the appellant has acted bona fide. Therefore the stay application for condonation of delay does not deserve any consideration for which that is dismissed. When the miscellaneous application is dismissed, both stay and appeal st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
