TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulated period of limitation of three months. But the appellant filed the appeal before this Court on 28.3.2016, after a long and inordinate delay of 638 days. According to the version of the appellant, it was informed by the counsel that the appeal of the revenue was dismissed in 2015 but still the appellant never bothered to obtain certified copy of the order. Nothing had been produced to substantiate the said plea either in the form of an affidavit of the counsel or by producing other material on record. Further, this version does not appear to be natural and cannot be said to be reasonable and logical as a litigant would always like to keep his record complete in case the lis had been decided either in his favour or against him by ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant was the authorized dealer of the car manufacturer company-M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd. and purchased motor cars from the manufacturer on principal to principal basis and sold the same to respective buyers. It provided services, namely, Authorized Service Station and Business Auxiliary Service and discharged service tax liabilities from time to time. A show cause notice dated 4.10.2006 (Annexure A-1) was issued to the appellant demanding service tax to the tune of ₹ 15,29,240/- ( ₹ 4,08,297/- + ₹ 4,26,409/- + ₹ 6,86,972/- + ₹ 7562/-) inclusive of education cess along with interest and penalty. The appellant filed reply dated 28.11.2006 to the said show cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application bearing CM No. 6800-CII of 2016 has been filed for condonation of 638 days' delay in filing the instant appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The primary question that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 5. Examining the legal position relating to condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short, the 1963 Act ) it may be observed that the Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, (2010) 5 SCC 459 laying down the broad principles for adjudicating the issue of condonation of delay, in paras 14 15 observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss each and every judgment cited before us for the simple reason that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not lay down any standard or objective test. The test of sufficient cause is purely an individualistic test. It is not an objective test. Therefore, no two cases can be treated alike. The statute of limitation has left the concept of sufficient cause delightfully undefined, thereby leaving to the Court a well-intentioned discretion to decide the individual cases whether circumstances exist establishing sufficient cause. There are no categories of sufficient cause. The categories of sufficient cause are never exhausted. Each case spells out a unique experience to be dealt with by the Court as such. It was also recorded tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also observed that judgments dealing with the condonation of delay may not lay down any standard or objective test but is purely an individualistic test. The court is required to examine while adjudicating the matter relating to condonation of delay on exercising judicial discretion on individual facts involved therein. There does not exist any exhaustive list constituting sufficient cause. The applicant/petitioner is required to establish that inspite of acting with due care and caution, the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and was inevitable. 9. Adverting to the factual matrix in this case, we do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay. The question regarding whether there is sufficie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. 10. In the present case after appreciating the plea of the appellant, the explanation furnished by it cannot be held to be plausible. It cannot be said that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Tribunal had decided the appeal on 6.12.2013. However, the appeal before this Court was required to be filed on or before 5.3.2014, i.e. within the stipulated period of limitation of three months. But the appellant filed the appeal before this Court on 28.3.2016, after a long and inordinate delay of 638 days. According to the version of the appellant, it was informed by the counsel that the appeal of the revenue was dismissed in 2015 but still the appellant never bothered to obtain certified copy of the order. Nothing had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
