TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that order and it is only when sometime in August, 2014 somebody found the order in the factory, the appeal was filed. The reason given by the appellant for delay is not disputed by the Department. - appellant has given a reason for about 90 days delay in filing of appeal which is plausible and which is not disputed by the Department. Moreover, the delay of 90 days in filing of appeal also cannot be said to be unreasonable and such a long delay which cannot be condoned, more so, when according to the appellant's version, they discovered the order of Commissioner (Appeals) order in their employee's cupboard in sometime in August, 2014 and immediately thereafter, filed the appeal. This is not a case, when looking to the length of delay and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the company found the impugned order in the Almirah and for this reason only, there is about 90 day's delay in filing of the appeal. She pleaded that the 90 day's delay in filing the appeal is due to bonafide reasons and same may be condoned. In this regard she relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another vs. MST. Katiji and Others reported in 1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC) wherein the Apex Court held that for condonation of delay, a liberal approach is needed, and that there is no presumption that delay was deliberate or on account of culpable negligence on account of malafide. She also relied upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also cited the judgment of the Apex Court in the case ofBalwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh reported in 2010 (262) ELT 50 (S.C.), wherein the Apex Court while holding that the law of limitation must be construed liberally, held that even if the sufficient cause is given liberal construction, it must fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party and on this ground refused to condone the delay of 770 days in filing of appeal. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no justification for 90 days delay in filing of appeal and the same cannot be condoned. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute that the impugned order was received on 21.02.2014 and app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t mean that a pedantic approach should be adopted and every seconds delay should be explained. The Apex Court also held that when the substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in justice being done because of a non deliberate delay. The Apex Court in this case also observed that there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides as a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay in filing of appeal and infact he runs a serious risk. The Apex Court in subsequent judgement has also maintained its earlier pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
