TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (appellant) instead of dismissing it on the ground of limitation. The delay in filing the appeal was hardly of 2 months and 19 days and keeping in view the ground stated in the present writ petition, we are inclined to hold that it constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the appeal beyond the statutory period prescribed for its filing - Decided in favour of assessee. - WP(C) 2476 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 19-5-2014 - Abhay Manohar Sapre, CJ And Ujjal Bhuyan,JJ. ORDER A. M. Sapre, C. J. Heard Mr. J Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department for the respondent. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal has not been signed by the aggrieved person as such it is non est. 3. In view of the above, the appeal is rejected as non est and filed late without justification of the late filing. So the short question that arises in this writ petition is whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the writ petitioner s appeal on the ground of limitation. In our view, the proper remedy of writ petitioner in this case was to file an appeal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise and Salt Act to this Court against the impugned order of the Tribunal rather than the writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution because the impugned order was appealable to this Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise and Salt Act. Be that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herever that is reasonably possible, in the light of that principle. Keeping in view the aforesaid observation in mind, when we examine the fact of this case, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the writ petitioner (appellant) instead of dismissing it on the ground of limitation. The delay in filing the appeal was hardly of 2 months and 19 days and keeping in view the ground stated in the present writ petition, we are inclined to hold that it constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the appeal beyond the statutory period prescribed for its filing. In our view, condoning the delay always advances the cause of justi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
