9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved party. As such, it is filed with an inordinate delay in filing the appeal i.e. 546 days and the reason assigned in the application is only and only that Tax Case No.59/2011 was pending before this Court in which the question of law involved in this appeal is also required to be adjudicated and once it has been adjudicated by this Court in Tax Case No. 59/2011 on 13-9-2017, the appeal came to be filed. In this regard, the legal position pertaining to the question whether while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the Court can look into the merits of the matter, is well settled and recently it has been held so by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of H. Guruswamy and others v. A. Krishnaiah since deceased by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of I.A.No.1/2018, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi had passed the order in question on 27-7-2016. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the appellant herein has preferred appeal on 23-6-2018, whereas the appeal was required to be preferred in terms of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act of 1944') within 180 days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the appellant herein. However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 546 days. Sufficient cause which is sought to be shown by the appellant is that the issue which is involved in this present appeal was decided by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not be a valid ground for seeking condonation of delay. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal and others (2024) 7 SCC 433 in which it has been held that subsequent change in law cannot be a ground for seeking condonation of delay. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant's appeal before the CESTAT was dismissed on merits on 27-7-2016 and it is also not in dispute that appeal under Section 35G of the Act of 1944 was preferred by the appellant only on 23-6-2018, whereas the appeal has to be preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opment Authority (supra), the Supreme Court has held that if subsequent change of law is allowed as a valid ground for condonation of delay, it would open a Pandora's box, and observed as under: - "42. Thirdly, if subsequent change of law is allowed as a valid ground for condonation of delay, it would open a Pandora's box where all the cases that were subsequently overruled, or the cases that had relied on the judgments that were subsequently overruled, would approach this Court and would seek a relief based on the new interpretation of law. There would be no finality to the proceedings and every time this Court would reach a different conclusion from its previous case, all such cases and the cases relying on it would be reopened." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
