TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Order. It was mandatory even for the Government Department to be careful about that statutory time limit. The date sheet produced on record rather reflects the casual and negligent attitude of the appellant which is highly unappreciable for a Government Department. Even under the name of administrative constraints, the delay of 780 days is not sufficiently explained. The Application in hand is hereby dismissed for want of any reasonable explanation or sufficient cause shown for delay of more than two years rather for the apparent negligence on part of the appellant - appeal dismissed. - Service Tax COD Application No. ST/COD/51221/2018 in Service Tax Appeal No. ST/53626/2018 [DB] - ST/A/50216/2019-CU[DB] - Dated:- 4-2-2019 - MR. V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limit during which Appeal may be preferred by the aggrieved party. Resultantly, delay as many as that of 780 days cannot be contained merely on this account. 4. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that law of limitation though may harshly affect particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable ground. It was appreciated by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala 1997 (7) SCC 556. In a prior decision, in the case of Katari Surya Narayan Vs. K. Subbarao AIR 2009 S.C. 2907 where the Hon ble Apex Court has construed the ambit scope and application of expression suffic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment to be careful about that statutory time limit. The date sheet produced on record rather reflects the casual and negligent attitude of the appellant which is highly unappreciable for a Government Department. Even under the name of administrative constraints, the delay of 780 days is not sufficiently explained. Keeping in view the entire above discussion, we are of the opinion that the case law as referred by the appellant is not applicable to the given facts and circumstances. The Application in hand is hereby dismissed for want of any reasonable explanation or sufficient cause shown for delay of more than two years rather for the apparent negligence on part of the appellant. Resultantly, the Appeal stands dismissed. [Dictated an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
