9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the delay for filing of the appeals may be condoned. "He pleaded that there is a delay of 69 days in the filing of the above captioned appeals and the applicants had been vigilant altogether in the filing of the appeal. In support of his arguments, he has referred to time chart which is in Annexure C alongwith the application for condonation of delay. Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned JDR pleaded that before the appeals could be filed, the applicants had to apply his mind whether the appeals are to be filed or not and prima facie merits of the case had to be looked into. He pleaded that there was Collectors' Conference on 7th and 8th March, 1990 and the applicant decided to file the appeal after discussions on the subject in the Collectors' Conference. He pleaded that the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 420 (Bom.) is in favour of the applicant and accordingly the applicant decided to file the appeals. He pleaded that a simple look at the time chart shows that on 19th February, 1990 which is well before the expiry of the limitation, the file was sent to the Assistant Collector (Tariff Cell) and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 420 (Bom.) decided that the expression 'rate of duty applicable' referred to duty specified in the Tariff heading and not the effective rate while interpreting the scope of expression 'rate applicable' in the context of another similar notification. 3. That the department has already 15 numbers of appeals against the orders of Collector of Customs (Appeals) on the same issue. 4. That the subject case was one of the first of the 16 orders of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and that by the time a decision was taken after the Conference of Collectors on 7th and 8th March, 1990 the time limit for filing appeal in this case had already expired. 5. That the correct legal position regarding the copy of rate applicable came to be known only after the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India mentioned in para 2. 6. That the applicant prays leave to refer to the time explaining the delay in filing appeal in Annexure C. 7. That the applicant most respectfully request to consider the explanation as stated hereinabove and pray for condonation of delay to save the loss of substantial Govt. Revenue." Alongwi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 185 (S.C.). Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case had held that the applicant is not to explain each and every day's delay. The relevant extract of the said case is re-produced below :- "3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 51 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice - that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matter instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that :- 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. Turning to the facts of the matter giving rise to the present appeal, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists for the delay. The order of the High Court dismissing the appeal before it as time barred, is therefore, set aside. Delay is condoned. And the matter is remitted to the High Court. The High Court will now dispose of the .appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides." Thereafter another matter came before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. M/s. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. and Another reported in 1988 (19) ECR 569 (SC). There the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "2. It appears according to the office report on Limitation that the special leave petition is delayed by 51 days. The application for condonation of delay was filed on behalf of the petitioners stating therein that due to "inter-departmental correspondence and processing of the matter to enable the department to file the instant petition." 3. List of dates in the application for condonation of delay gives interesting reading as follows :- 4-11-1986 The date of receipt of certified c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to treat the decree as binding between the parties and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be light heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal." 6. Earlier in the case of State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality reported in AIR 1972 SC. 749, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that mere fact that the appellant is state, no special treatment should be accorded to the appellants. Para No. 27 from the said judgment is re-produced below :- "The expression "sufficient cause" cannot be construed too liberally, merely because the party in default is the Government. It is no doubt true that whether it is a Government or a private party, the provisions of law applicable are the same, unless the statute itself makes any distinction. But it cannot also be gainsaid that the same consideration that will be shown by courts to a private party when he claims the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act should also be available to the State." 7. This Tribunal had occasion to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
