Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2013 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1049 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTCondonation of Delay – Delay of 11 years and 227 days – Held that:- The Central Excise Department has been grossly negligent in pursuing the matter - The order of CEGAT allowing the appeal of the assessee and dismissing the appeal of the department was passed on 28.5.1999, against which a Special Leave to Appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn to file writ petition in the High Court - The department was well aware that the writ petition was not maintainable against the order and that a reference could be made for which an application had to be filed before the Tribunal - Instead of filing an application for reference, the department filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was admitted on 2.1.2002 - The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 11.10.2006 - A restoration application was filed with delay of 3 ½ years in July, 2009 - When the matter came up for hearing, the Court found that the writ petition of the Central Excise Department against the order of the CEGAT was not maintainable - The Court dismissed the writ petition on 3.5.2010 on the ground of alternative remedy to file reference under the Central Excise Act - The department instead of approaching the Tribunal for making reference under Section 35 G (1) filed a reference directly in the High Court with delay - In the process more than 11 years time was consumed in challenging the order of CEGAT. The Central Excise Department has been grossly negligent in pursuing the matter - It filed appeal in the Supreme Court, which was not maintainable and thereafter a misconceived writ petition, which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy - In the process the department has consumed 11 years and 227 days within which the assessee must have arranged his financial affairs, which need not be disturbed at such distance of time - the delay condonation application rejected – Decided against Petitioner.
|