Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2013 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 65 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTCondonation of delay - delay of 697 days - benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. - Held that:- the appellant was assisted and had the services of the counsel's, who are expert in the central excise and customs cases. They first filed a writ petition, and then without converting it into appeal obtained an interim order. They kept on getting the matter adjourned and thereafter inspite of specific objection taken, citing the relevant case law, which is well known, took time to study the matter. Thereafter, they took more than one year and three months, to study the matter to withdraw the appeal. They took a chance, which apparently looking to the facts in Ketan V. Parekh's case [2011 (11) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and this case appear to be the practice of the counsels appearing in such matters at Delhi High Court and succeeded in getting interim orders. The Supreme Court [2011 (11) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has strongly deprecated such practice of forum shopping. In this case also there is no pleading that the writ petition and thereafter appeal was filed in Delhi High Court, under bonafide belief that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appellant was pursuing the remedies in wrong court with due diligence. The appellant, thereafter, caused a further delay of 20 days in filing this appeal, which he has not explained. The appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. This appeal is barred by limitation by 697 days, which has not been sufficiently explained by the appellant. - decided against the assessee.
|