TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan. It is apparent that this application itself was filed much beyond the period prescribed for the same i.e. after more than six months of the aforesaid final order. The statute i.e. Section 35 D of Central Excise Act/ Section 129 of Customs Act, 1962 prescribes a period of six months from the date of the order rectification whereof is prayed. In the present case, we do accept that date of order of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court is the relevant date for the said period of limitation to begin with. But we fail to understand as to how the said period can be allowed to be extended beyond the said period of six months. The application for rectification of mistake, to our opinion, is beyond the period of limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND DR.RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Mr. Priyesh Kasliwal , Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Rakesh Agarwal, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Present order disposes of application praying for condonation of delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of mistake in final order No. 58556- 58557 of 2017 dated 22.12.2017, as filed in both the above mentioned appeals. 2. We have heard Mr.Priyesh Kasliwal, ld. Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rakesh Agarwal, ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue. 3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has mentioned that against the aforesaid final order of this Tribunal, the applicant had fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. 5. Having heard the rival contentions and perusing the entire record of the appeals, we observe that the Show Cause Notice dated 02.02.2016 itself mentions that the appellant had deposited Rs.10,00,000/- and submitted cheque bearing No.290031 dated 05.02.2015 for Rs.16,00,000/-, Cheque No.290149 dated 18.02.2015 for Rs.16,00,000/-, Cheque No.290191 dated 23.02.2015 for Rs.16,00,000/- and Cheque No.290192 dated 23.02.2015 for Rs.13,81,759/-. The remaining amount of duty has been deposited by them vide TR- 6 Challan No.008 dated 24.01.2015 of Rs.10,00,000/- Challan No.009 dated 25.02.2015 of Rs.32,00,000/- and Challan No.010 dated 25.02.2015 of Rs.29,81,759/- (i.e. total of Rs.71,81,759/-. We further observe that the said fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said delay. No doubt catena of decisions require that the Court should adopt a liberal approach and the delay should be condoned on mere asking of the applicant, but simultaneously, there have been decisions which have held that the words sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical though liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the type of the case. The words 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 of Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, only when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.C.) has held that sometimes the Courts have taken a view that delay should be condoned with a liberal attitude while on certain occasions the Courts have taken a stricter view and wherever the explanation was not satisfactory have dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Hence there can be no straight -jacket formula to be applied to all cases without reference to peculiar facts and circumstances of a given case. It has been held by Hon ble Apex Court that it must be kept in mind that whenever a law is enacted by the legislature, it is intended to be enforced in its proper perspective. It is an equally settled principle of law that the provisions of a statute, including every word, have to be given full effect, keeping the legi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above and after considering the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that there has been a substantial delay on part of the applicant firstly in challenging the final order of 22.12.2017 before Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan and subsequently, a substantial delay in filing this application pursuant to the order of Rajasthan High Court dated 25.08.2021. The only explanation for such delay at every stage is the time taken by applicant in consultation with his Counsel. Even the name of the Counsels engaged for those consultations is not mentioned in the application. The reason given reflects the negligent and casual attitude of the applicant. The explanation therefore is absolutely vague. Delay even of one day has to be explained. Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
