9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is a Charitable Trust. Upon cumulative consideration of all these factors coupled with the fact that the delay was of only 102 days, a case had been made out for condonation of delay. The delay of 102 days in instituting the appeal before the Tribunal was required to be condoned in the interests of justice by accepting the cause shown by the appellant as sufficient cause - COD application allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2019 - M.S. SANKLECHA, AND M.S. SONAK, JJ. Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w. Ms Pragya Koolwal I/b UBR Legal for the Appellant. Mr. P. S. Jetly a/w. J.B. Mishra for the Respondent. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M.S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3th February 2017. Since, there was delay of 102 days in institution of this appeal, the appellant along with the memo of appeal filed an application for condonation of delay, duly supported by affidavit of Mr. Vinay Agrawal, the Trustee of the appellant. The Tribunal by order dated 23rd July 2018, has however, refused to condone the delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the Tribunal's order dated 23rd July 2018, the appellant has instituted the present appeal which came to be admitted on the aforesaid substantial question of law. 5] Mr. Raichandani, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the order-in-appeal dated 13th February 2017 was issued on 28th February 2017 and was received at the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to be condoned. 6] Mr. Jetly, learned counsel for the respondent, defends the impugned order on the basis of the reasoning reflected therein. He submits that the order-in-appeal was duly served upon the appellant at the appellant's office address. He submits that no further requirement of personal service upon the Trustees of the appellant can be implied in such matters. He submits that the affidavit-in-support of the application for condonation of delay does not make out any 'sufficient cause' and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in making the impugned order and refusing to condone the delay in the institution of appeal. Mr.Jetly, therefore, submits that the substantial question of law as framed is liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, it cannot be said that no 'sufficient cause' was made out to explain the delay of 102 days in institution of appeal. 10] The fact position in Living Media India Ltd. (supra) upon which considerable reliance has been placed by the Tribunal was quite different from the fact position, in the present case. In the said case, the only explanation for delay of 427 days in instituting the appeal was that the file in question moved from Officer to Officer and hence the delay. In the present case, there does appear to have been serious communication gap between the office staff who may have received the order in original and the Trustees of the appellant, who were in a position to ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first Court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior Court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower court. The reason for such different stance is that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situation is not because on the expiry of such time as bad cause would transform into a good cause. 13] Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, we are satis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
