9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an 30 days in filing the appeal rather it is open to the CESTAT to condone the delay in filing the appeal irrespective of the length of delay. - In view of the conjoint reading of Sub-Sections (3) and (5) of Section 35B of the Act it is implicit that the CESTAT does not lack in jurisdiction to condone the delay even of more than 30 days in the filing of the appeal - answered in favor of assessee. Reason for delay not given - Held that: - as there is no dispute to the fact that the ownership of the appellant was in transition, the new management had filed the appeal promptly without wasting unnecessary time and that the delay if any on its part is not deliberate or smacks of mala fides, the CESTAT probably took too technical a view in ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemption to it under the notification No.50/2003-CE vide order dated 29.09.2014. The said order was received by the appellant on 07.10.2014 but the appeal was filed on 13.05.2016 with the delay of about 500 days (exactly 493 days). The CESTAT refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal for two reasons. First, it has no jurisdiction to condone the delay of more than 30 days. Secondly, no explanation was given for the delay in filing the appeal after December, 2015. Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant has placed the application moved by the appellant for condoning the delay and has contended that the delay was not at all wilful or deliberate but was on account of a bona fide reason that the appellant company was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d there was no mala fides or any dilatory tactics attributed to the appellant, the CESTAT is justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal in utter disregard to the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy 2008 (228) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.) : (1998) 7 S.C.C. 123. There is no dispute to the fact that the appeal before the CESTAT was preferred with the delay of exactly 493 days. There is also no denial to the fact that despite service of the impugned order upon the appellant on 07.10.2014, the new management responsible to look after the assessee acquired knowledge of it in December, 2015 only. Sub-Section (3) of Section 35B of the Act provides that every appeal under this section sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties but are to compel the parties to take recourse to the legal remedies promptly so that a legal remedy may not remain alive for an indefinite period. The object therefore, is to put a limitation to the legal remedy rather than on the rights of the parties. The aforesaid principle is founded on public policy. It is also well acknowledged in law that the courts ordinarily should take a liberal approach in matters of condoning the delay rather than in closing a lis on the technical ground of limitation as refusal to condone delay at times result in ousting of a good cause without adjudication on merits. Thus, the approach of the courts have always been to give a liberal construction in the matter of condoning the delay in filing the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
