TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal had not been mentioned therein and also the verification date was blank. It was one Bindu Gupta, DE (Legal) Office of GMT, Patiala who had verified such application by an affidavit - In the absence of definite averments and substantive proof with material to substantiate the reasons for condonation of delay, no justification for condonation of exorbitant delay of about one and a half year in filing the appeal before the Tribunal arises - Decided against the assessee. - CWP No. 1085 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Jaspal Singh,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Rajotia, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. In this writ petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty to allow cenvat credit to the extent availed on construction work of office only and disallow the credit availed on civil construction work of residential premises. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.9.2012 (Annexure P-4) dismissed the application as well as the appeal holding that the application was blank about the days of delay and also was not properly verified. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The solitary question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay of about one and a half year in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate-Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil. 6. It was further noticed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 892 as under:- .....It is not necessary at this stage to discuss each and every judgment cited before us for the simple reason that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not lay down any standard or objective test. The test of sufficient cause is purely an individualistic test. It is not an objective test. Therefore, no two cases can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied in deciding such cases. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. and R.B. Ramlingam's cases (supra) noticed that the courts should adopt liberal approach where delay is of short period whereas the proof required should be strict where the delay is inordinate. Further, it was also observed that judgments dealing with the condonation of delay may not lay down any standard or objective test but is purely an individualistic test. The court is required to examine while adjudicating the matter relating to condonation of delay on exercising jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
