9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be faulted with. The second ground is also of no substance for the reason that on one hand, the petitioner says that they were busy in various International Trade Fairs and obviously in so far as the present claim is concerned, it appears that they were not bothered at all or interested in obtaining the benefit which was due to them and for the lapses on the part of the petitioner itself, no one else can be blamed about it. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate. There was no reasonable cause which could justify condoning the delay and the reasons, which have been made out, have been found to be unjust and improper. - Decided against the assessee. - DB Civil Writ Petition No.5305/2013 - - - Dated:- 7-5-2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enough to condone the delay in filing the supplementary claims and direction was given to the adjudicating authority to dispose of the supplementary drawback claims on merits. 4. The Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, aggrieved with the said order, preferred a revision application under Section 129-DD of the Customs Act, 1962 before the revisional authority namely; the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). The revisional authority vide order dt.15/12/2009 quashed and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide impugned order upheld the findings of the adjudicating authority i.e. the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner (drawback). 5. Subsequent to that, an application/representation dt.14/02/2011 was moved to the revisional authority who decided the revision for condoning the delay in filing the supplementary drawback claim as according to the petitioner, there were certain mistakes. However, the revisional authority did not accept the contention of the petitioner and vide order dt.26/09/2012 rejected the application. Both the orders dated 15/12/2009 and 26/09/2012 have been assailed by the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a dilatory tactic, courts should normally condone the delay and in the instant case, there was no obvious reason except bonaifde reasons that the delay was caused. He contended that the writ petition deserves to be admitted and the claim deserves to be allowed. 7. Per Contra ld. Counsel for the revenue contended that the revisional authority as also the adjudicating authority had rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner as no good reason was assigned for condoning the delay. He further contended that the benefit, if any, was to be availed by the petitioner and if the petitioner himself was not vigilant, then he has to suffer on account of his own lapses. He further contended that the revision was decided in December, 2009 and the present writ petition has been filed in March, 2013 which is also after about 4 years which also speaks that even for availing of an appropriate remedy, the petitioner slept over and therefore, even for this reason, the writ is not maintainable and no benefit can be conferred upon the petitioner and accordingly prayed that the writ petition be dismissed with costs. 8. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s well, the reasons, which have been assigned, are no good reasons at all as the bank promptly credits the amount in the account of the exporter on the very next day and also sends fortnightly statements to the exporter i.e. the petitioner herein must have received the statement and nothing has been spelt out in the writ petition or in the arguments by counsel for the petitioner that the bank delayed the same. It is a mere version without any evidence to support the said fact which cannot be accepted. If there was delay on the part of the Bank then it ought to have made the Bank know about it. The bank is an agent of the petitioner and if the bank is at fault and no evidence has been brought on record by way of representation or otherwise to the Bank, then the respondents cannot be faulted with. 10. The second ground is also of no substance for the reason that on one hand, the petitioner says that they were busy in various International Trade Fairs and obviously in so far as the present claim is concerned, it appears that they were not bothered at all or interested in obtaining the benefit which was due to them and for the lapses on the part of the petitioner itself, no one els ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay and laches. The judgments, relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, referred to supra, do not help the petitioner as the petitioner has been unable to justify with cogent reasons about the abnormal delay in filing the supplementary claims and in our view, no good reason has been assigned by which the delay could have been condoned. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment rendered in the case of Amalendu Kumar Bera and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal: (2013) 4 SCC 52 observed as under:- Curiously enough in the application for condonation of delay no sufficient cause has been shown which would entitle the Respondent to get a favourable order for condonation of delay. True it is, that courts should always take liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay, particularly when the appellant is the State but in a case where there is serious laches and negligence on the part of the State in challenging the decree passed in the suit and affirmed in appeal, the State cannot be allowed to wait to file objection under Section 47 till the decree holder puts the decree in execution. As noticed above, the decree passed in the year 1967 was in respect of declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... experience to be dealt with by the Court as such. For the aforestated reasons, we hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special leave petition stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition. In exercise of discretion under Article 136 to decide whether delay should be condoned or not, this Court is not bound by considerations applicable to an Appellate Court but nonetheless general principles which would weigh with the Appellate Court in determining sufficient cause can be the guiding factor/guideline. Therefore, it cannot be stated as a proposition per se that the prosecution of Review Proceedings would not be a sufficient cause at all for purposes of Section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963. 14. Therefore, in the light of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, pendency of a review petition though can be a sufficient cause for the purposes of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act or for condoning the delay, but when we see the facts of the instant case, then it is quite clear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
