Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (12) TMI 489 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to administrative delays in forming a review committee.
Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, which was contested by the respondent based on administrative delays in forming a review committee. The delay in question was 49 days. The appellant explained that due to administrative changes and the absence of a regular Commissioner at Allahabad, it was not possible to form the required Committee for reviewing the order during the relevant period. The appellant highlighted the timeline of events, including the transfer of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, and subsequent administrative arrangements. The appellant argued that the delay was justified given the circumstances. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both parties and examined the timeline of events leading to the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that during the period when the Commissioner joined at Lucknow, there was no regular Commissioner at Allahabad, and the additional charge was being handled by the Commissioners of Central Excise, Lucknow. The Tribunal acknowledged that under such circumstances, forming the required Committee for review was not feasible. Consequently, the Chief Commissioner issued an order on 5-10-2005, appointing the Commissioner of Kanpur to hold the additional charge of Allahabad Commissionerate for the purpose of reviewing orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found the reasons provided by the appellant regarding the administrative challenges to be acceptable. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, condoning the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court on 28-12-2005. The decision underscores the importance of considering administrative constraints and challenges in determining the justification for delays in legal proceedings, particularly in cases involving changes in personnel and administrative responsibilities within government departments.
|