Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 925 - HC - Central ExciseCondonation of delay - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CESTAT was justified in rejecting the application preferred on behalf of the appellant for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation? Held that: - It is settled law that when the substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice has to be preferred. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.”,[1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court], the court should adopt liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay. The appellant had furnished the explanation that some time was spent in obtaining legal opinion from the Chartered Accountant, which was supported by various communications available on official record - Thus, the explanation furnished on behalf of the appellant explaining the delay in filing the appeal remains uncontroverted, which cannot be said to be unsatisfactory. The delay in filing the appeal stands sufficiently explained by the appellant and thus, CESTAT has erred in refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation - appeal allowed - delay condoned - decided in favor of appellant.
|