TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -12-2006 is considered to be the relevant date for computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal - in the facts of the present case, though the inaccurate statement contained in the application seeking condonation of delay does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay, in view of the material now brought on record, we uphold the order of AAIFR in condoning the delay of seven days in filing the appeal In the present case, admittedly after receipt of the authenticated copy of the order on 2-1-2007, decision was taken on [29-1-2007] to accept the order of BIFR, however, subsequently on reconsideration it was decided to file an appeal against the order of the BIFR and accordingly the appeal was filed on 2-2-2007 - He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efer an appeal to the Appellate Authority, provided that the Appellate Authority may entertain any appeal after the said period of 45 days but not after 60 days from the date aforesaid if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. 3. There is no dispute that under Section 25 of SICA, the expression within 45 days from the date on which the copy of the order is issued to him , means within 45 days from the date of communication of the order . The dispute in the present case, is, regarding the date of communication of the order of BIFR dated 5-12-2006 to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik. Notarized copy of the order of the BIFR dated 5-12-2006 was served on the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers, a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 16-9-2008 set aside the order dated 23-3-2007 and directed the AAIFR to pass fresh order after considering the points raised by both the sides. Accordingly, the matter was heard afresh and by the impugned order dated 28-9-2010, the AAIFR condoned the delay of seven days in filing the Appeal beyond 45 days as the AAIFR is empowered to condone the delay upto fifteen days after 45 days from the date of communication of the order of BIFR. 7. The entire case of the petitioners is that the impugned order dated 28-9-2010 has been passed by the AAIFR in gross violation of the order passed by this Court on 16-9-2008 wherein specific directions were given to consider the points raised by the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of BIFR had to be filed within 45 days from receiving the order on 12-12-2006, that is, on or before 26-1-2007. However, the appeal was filed on 2-2-2007, that is, seven days after the expiry of 45 days. This delay of seven days could be condoned by AAIFR only if sufficient cause was shown. 10. This Court while remanding the matter back on 16-9-2008 had specifically directed the AAIFR to consider the points raised by both the sides and pass appropriate orders. The point raised by the petitioners before the AAIFR was that firstly the statement contained in the application seeking condonation of delay that till the receipt of the order on 2-1-2007, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik was not aware of the order of BIFR was totally f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of mind. 14. For the first time before this Court in reply to the present Writ Petition, it is brought on record that initially the appropriate authority on [29-1-2007] decided to accept the order of BIFR and thereafter on re-examination decided to contest the order of BIFR on the ground that the said order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal was filed on 2-2-2007. Though these facts on record were not set out in the application seeking condonation of delay, we cannot ignore these facts which are now brought to our notice. In our opinion, these facts constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay of seven days. 15. Dealing with the allegation of making false statement, it is contended by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land against the award was disposed off on 9-3-2000 by enhancing the compensation. On 24-3-2000, the Government Pleader recommended that it was a fit case for filing an appeal against the grant of enhanced compensation. On 13-4-2000, the Law Department decided to accept the decision of the Reference Court. Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 31-5-2001 addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary, Law Department to review their order dated 13-4-2000. The Government declined to review their order. Thereafter, the beneficiary made arrangements to deposit the decretal amount in May 2001 itself. However, the beneficiary filed an appeal on 25-2-2005 against the enhancement of compensation along with an application seeking condona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
