Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 1000 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTCondonation of delay in filing an appeal - determination of date of service of order - Precedent - Scope of writ court - maintainability of appeal - time limitation - case of appellant is that the order in original passed by the authorities was not served upon the petitioner. Consequently the petitioner could not file the appeal within the statutory period - Held that: - The scope of a writ Court and an appeal Court in respect of an order passed by a statutory authority are different. A writ court can interfere if the petitioner substantiates that, there has been breach of principles of natural justice or that, the impugned order suffers from such perversity so as to shock the conscience of the Court or that, the impugned order is vitiated by malice or has been rendered wholly without jurisdiction. In the present case, no facade of breach of principles of natural justice is pressed into service by the petitioner in assailing the three orders. CESTAT in its second impugned order is of the view that, it is to follow the decision of the High Court as it is of superior authority rather than the larger Bench of the CESTAT itself. As a writ Court, I am not concerned with the decision per se of the authority rather the decision making process of the authority as noted above. I find no material irregularity in decision making process of the authority in respect of any of the two impugned orders to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|