9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is part in preferring the Appeal. A valuable right is secured to the successful party of which he should not be deprived of lightly. While dealing with an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay, the Court ought not to light heartedly disturb the legal right accrued to the appellant on failure to prefer the appeal or application within the time prescribed for it - delay condoned - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - TAX APPEAL No. 753 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 12-1-2017 - MR. M.R. SHAH AND MR. N. KARIA, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. DEVAN PARIKH, Sr Advocate with Mr RAJ K VYAS, Advocate For The Opponent : Mr. DHAVAL D VYAS, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erits. That, in an application praying for condonation of delay, lenient view should have been taken by the Tribunal and the Appeal ought to have been decided on merits rather than dismissing the application on technicalities. Hence, it was requested by him to allow this Tax Appeal by quashing and setting aside the impugned Order and thereby directing the Tribunal to hear the said Appeal on merits. 4. On the otherside, Shri Dhaval D Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue strongly opposed the submissions made for and on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the appellant is negligent in preferring the Appeal in time. That, the appellant was aware that the appeal was to be preferred by M/s. Ganpati Energy Private ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 698370 dated 31st May 2012/2nd April 2012, for which M/s. Ganpati Energy Private Limited had raised an Invoice No. HSS005 dated 23rd May 2012 for ₹ 1,07,66,000/= and the appellant had made payment for the said bill to the said Agency. The question was whether the goods imported in the form of Steam Coal from Indonesia is steam coal or bituminous coal was pending before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, as outcome of the same on classification was awaited from the Larger Bench of the Tribunal at Chennai. It also appears that the appellant was issued a show cause notice being F. No. VIII/10- 43/O A/203 dated 19th September 2013. The said show cause notice was forwarded by the appellant to M/s. Ganpati Energy Private Limited for doi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Private Limited with a request to do the needful in the matter, as the appellant had purchased the goods at the agreed price. As no action was taken by the said agency in preferring the appeal or challenging the impugned order, it appears that there was a bona fide delay on the part of the appellant in preferring the appeal in time before the respondent. Therefore, while exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court ought to have adopted a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and the case, the delay is of few days. From the facts, as narrated in the appeal and urged by the learned advocate for the appellant, it appears that the appellant was reasonably dili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
