TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissed their writ petition twice i.e. on 1996 with a cost of Rs.5000/- and 2006. Therefore, the plea of their filing appeal before the Hon'ble High Court on a wrong belief, cannot be acceptable. As during the pendency of their writ appeal, they filed the statutory Appeal before this Tribunal on being advised by their advocate in Sep.2010, but consequently, from the record it seems that they did not bring this fact to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court nor they withdrew their Writ Appeal from the High Court informing the High Court about it thus no proof to warrant that their conduct that their approach and attitude has been bonafide. Aslo while filing the condonation application on 20.09.2010 along with the Appeal, they had neither indicated the number of days delay nor stated the reasons thereof making it vague and keeping their all options open. Looking into the delay in the proceeding which is now almost 27 year caused due to the Appellant's non-cooperation in the proceeding, no merit on the reasons/grounds advanced by the Applicant through their affidavit to condone the delay of 3187 days - Stay Petition stands disposed of. - Excise Appeal No. E/A/668/2010 - M-475/,S-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court after detailed analysis of the facts and evidence dismissed the Writ Petition observing that there was no violation of principles of natural justice and also on the ground of existence of alternate remedy which was not exhausted by the Appellant before approaching the Hon'ble High Court. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench on 22.01.2007. During the pendency of the appeal before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, the Appellant had filed the present Appeal before this Tribunal on 20.09.2010 along with an Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal without mentioning the period of delay and also any specific reason for such delay. 5. The Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that even though in their Misc. application dt.20.09.2010 seeking condonation for delay, they had neither mentioned the period of delay nor reasons thereof, but later on 28.09.2011, they had filed a detailed affidavit explaining the grounds of delay of 3187 days in filing the Appeal. They mentioned that their plywood factory had been closed in December, 1996 as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns were stated, and when the same was filed, the Writ Appeal was pending before the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court. He has further submitted that it is also not clear whether the Applicant had disclosed the fact of their filling the present statutory Appeal before this Tribunal, to the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court at the time of disposal of their Writ Appeal. He has submitted that the Appellant had resorted to the method of delaying tactics and accordingly, their intention is not bonafide and hence their Application seeking condonation of delay of 3187 days should not be allowed. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that the Applicant has filed the present Miscellaneous Application on 20.09.2010. The contents of same is as under: "The Appellant on receipt of the Order dated 28-09-2001 issued by the Commissioner, Shillong, filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court WP(C) No.274/2002 against the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court by an order dated 22-12-2006 dismissed the Writ Petition. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Writ Appeal No.121/2007 before the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court. The said appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd. 2012 (277) ELT 289 (SC) while denying special treatment to Govt. Agencies has laid down that delay should not be condoned mechanically but it is to be seen whether there is gross negligence or deliberate in action or lack of bonafide approach by the Applicant. 11. In the present case, we find that the Applicant/Appellant, though mentioned the delay of 3187 days, they have not furnished the detailed date chart explaining such inordinate delay; leave aside the day wise explanation of the delay even they failed to explain the month wise delay. Besides, we find that delay can be condoned only when the approach of the litigant is bonafide and not on account of culpable negligence or on account of deliberate in action or bonafide approach. In the present case, we find that though the show cause notice was issued in 1985 and adjudicated in the year, 1990, the Applicant/Appellant approached the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court between 1990 and 2006, by filing three Writ Petitions knowing fully well that statutory remedy is always available to them and had they pursued the same the proceeding would have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
