9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder-in-Original dated 23-2-2009 and resultantly the Order-in-Appeal dated 18-12-2009 and uphold the refund granted already vide order dated 3-3-2009. b. Your Lordships be pleased to pending the final disposal of the present petition stay the operation and implementation of any recovery qua the above impugned orders dated 23-2-2009 & 18-12-2009. c. Your Lordships be pleased to pending the admission and final hearing of the present petition grant ex parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer B above. d. Your Lordships be pleased to pass such other and further orders deemed fit and proper in the facts of the present case." 2. The facts in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating authority has noted that personal hearing was offered to the assessee thrice who did not avail such opportunity of being heard in person. On noting that the principles of natural justice has been sufficiently followed, it decided the issue on the basis of the available evidence on record. The petitioner herein challenged the same before the Commissioner (Appeals) raising various grounds in such challenge. Such appeal was preferred on 3-8-2009 i.e. five months after the order impugned was passed. An application for condonation of delay was preferred along with the said appeal. It had been averred in the said application for condonation that the order-in-original had been received, but, was lost as the person concerned who received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has sought to place reliance upon the decisions of this Court rendered in case of D.R. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2008 (127) ECC 61 = 2008 (229) E.L.T. 24 (Guj.) and also in case of Senior Superintendent of Post Office v. Union of India dated 23-6-2011 in Special Civil Application No. 7350/2011 [2011 (24) S.T.R. 168 (Guj.)]. It would be profitable to reproduce the observations made in the said case at this stage : "3. To the statutory provisions contained in the Finance Act, 1994 with respect to filing of appeal and limitation, etc., there is no dispute. It is thus not in dispute that the power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay is only up to a maximum period of three months. 4. In that view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdinary jurisdiction in the instant case when there is no error in their concurrent views. He however, has not disputed that neither of the authorities i.e. the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal examined the issue on merits. He heavily relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Jamshedpur (supra) to substantiate his decision. He has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 790 (S.C.) where doctrine of merger has been explained by the Apex Court which was examining the question of provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act. After considering the question in detail, it has concluded that doctrine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore be justiciable having become barred by limitation. Redressal of grievances in the hands of the departmental authorities take an unduly long time. That is so on account of the fact that no attention is ordinarily bestowed over these matters and they are not considered to be governmental business of substance. This approach has to be deprecated and authorities on whom power is vested to dispose of appeals and revisions under the Service Rules must dispose of such matters as expeditiously as possible. Ordinarily, a period of three to six months should be the outer limit. That would discipline the system and keep the public servant away from a protracted period of litigation. We are satisfied that to meet the situation as has arisen here, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtraordinary jurisdiction relying on the decision of D.R. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), recognising that this Court has extraordinary powers in appropriate case to interfere even while upholding the contention that there is statutory limitation to which delay can be condoned by the authorities. We ourselves have earlier in case of Senior Superintendent of Post Office v. Union of India (supra) recognised that if an aggrieved person knocks the door of High Court seeking redressal under writ jurisdiction for valid reasons, to obviate extraordinary hardship and injustice such challenge can be entertained even beyond the period of limitation. 12. In the instant case, we have found that in the first round of litigation present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
