9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far back as 26-2-1990 by the Supreme Court to explain the delay. In the process, it is the revenue which has suffered. The facts indicative of the callousness are as follows ; (a) On 16th June, 1976, the Central Government issued a Notification No. 198 of 1976 under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, giving substantial relief to various products including tyres and tubes. The Notification was to remain in force till 31st March, 1979. (b) By Notification No. 141 of 1978 issued by the Central Government on 14th July, 1978, the product in question, viz. tyres and tubes, came to be deleted. (c) In the circumstances, on 10th October, 1978, Miscellaneous Petition No. 1424 of 1978 came to be filed by Ceat Tyres (the original Petitioner) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same position continues and despite opportunity being given to the Central Government by the Supreme Court, as stated hereinafter, the same cavalier attitude on the part of the Central Government continues. (h) Against the said order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 11th January, 1989, the Department preferred S.L.P. to the Supreme Court. (i) On 26th February, 1990, the Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the S.L.P. preferred by the Central Government. However, liberty was given to the Central Government to move this Court for review after filing a proper affidavit explaining the delay. (j) On 1st March 1990, the certified copy of the order of the Supreme Court was collected by the original petitioners - Ceat Tyres. (k) O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh the Review Petition was solemnly declared on 10th May, 1990, it was not duly signed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III. This was one of the office objections and it took more than two years for the Officer to come to the Court and sign the Review Petition which was done on 27th July, 1992. (n) On 30th August 1993, the Review Petitioner filed the present Notice of Motion together with the affidavit dated 6th August, 1993 for condonation of delay. This Motion was filed after 3 years and 3 months. The Government took 3 years and 3 months to remove the office objection. The affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion dated 6th August, 1993 also does not give any explanation as to why the said application was not ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven as to when the objections were raised by the office and why were they not removed for more than 3 years. One more opportunity was further given by us and now an affidavit has been filed on 10th November, 1993 by Nandkumar Shantaram Nagvekar, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, m the said affidavit dated 10th November, 1993, we are now informed for the first time that the office raised 6 to 7 objections on 14th May, 1990 as stated above. Surprisingly, in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit it is stated that the Ministry of Law and Justice was not aware that the Review Petition was under objection and, therefore, it was not numbered. This is a false statement, particularly in view of the fact that as stated hereinabove, a specific letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der, we would like to mention one more mis-statement of fact in the affidavit dated 10th November, 1993. In paragraph 8 of the said affidavit, it has been stated as follows : ".... The said Notice of Motion was made returnable before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurdukar and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jhunjhunwala on 17th September, 1993, however Notice of Motion came up for hearing before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kantharia and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kapadia on 27-10-1993." The above-quoted portion of paragraph 8 also does not reflect the correct position. The present Notice of Motion came to be assigned to the present Division Bench by the learned Chief Justice on 16th September, 1993 in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the present nature where the delay in not removing the office objections extends beyond 3 years. One more fact may be mentioned that it has been repeatedly argued and even mentioned in affidavits that since the Central Government has to deal with a large number of matters, they should be shown latitude in such matters. In the present case, there is no merit in the said contention for the reason that the Supreme Court had given liberty to the Government to file a detailed affidavit explaining the delay, as far back as on 26th February, 1990, and yet no steps were taken whatsoever even to remove the office objections which were raised on 14th May, 1990 and since then the matter continued to remain on the Lodging number. On the other hand, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
