9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rance through counsel. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to admit the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law raised by the appellant :- "i) Whether the Tribunal is right in not considering the settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs Chandramani (2002 (143) ELT 249 (SC)) that when the State is an appellant, the expression sufficient cause should be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay in order that merit is preferred to scutt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. Against the said order, the Department filed appeal before the Tribunal, however, with a delay of 29 days. 3. It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that the reason for the Department filing the appeal with a delay of 29 days is in view of the fact that the Supreme Court has admitted similar matters in CCE, Vadadora-I Gujarat Carbon & Industries Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.1618/2005) and Chennai III Commissionerate Vs Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.7144/2005). It is further evident from the said order of the Tribunal that though the order in original was originally accepted by the department, in view of the pendency of similar issue before the Apex Court in related matters and since huge amounts were involved, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that 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. Further, the Supreme Court also held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 7. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in 2013 (5) CTC 547 (Esha Bhattacharjee V. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, Nafar Academy and others), the Apex Court has enunciated the following guidelines to be adopted while deciding matters relating to co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the Courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) The Concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former Doctrine of Prejudice is attracted, whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; 16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are : (a) An Application for Condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the Courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. (b) An Application for Condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual phil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
