9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals, Bangalore vide Annexure-B. 2. Though the challenge is made to the order dated 8-4-2004, the appeal is filed only on 16-6-2008 and therefore, the matter is posted for condonation of delay of 1280 days. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the question of delay in filing the appeal and perused the application for condonation of delay as well as the application for dispensation of production of the certified copy of the order No. 361/2004-B dated 8-4-2004 passed by CESTAT. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that final order No. 361/2004-B dated 8-4-2004 was passed by CESTAT, New Delhi and against the said order, an appeal had to be filed before this Court, however, an appeal was filed befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose of condonation of delay in filing the appeal to an extent of 1280 days. We observe that this appeal is filed without the production of the certified copy of the order of CESTAT and that an application has been made under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1952 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to dispense with the production of the certified copy of the final order passed by the CESTAT. 6. In fact, as per the practice in this Court, in writ proceedings, considering the urgency in the matter, dispensation of the production of the impugned order is sought and granted by the Registrar (Judicial) subject to production of the original order or certified copy of the said order within a period of four weeks or as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed along with the appeal. On receipt of the certified copy of the order of the Delhi High Court dated 16-10-2006 on 11-5-2007, the Department sought nomination of counsel to file an appeal in this Court by letter dated 16-5-2007 which was received on 21-5-2007. There is no explanation as to why the order dated 16-10-2006 passed by the Delhi High Court was received by the appellant only on 11-5-2007. In our view, the certified copy of the order of the Delhi High Court dated 16-10-2006 was not a necessary document to be filed before this Court for challenging the order of CESTAT. Be that as it may, the manner in which the Department has acted in trying to get the certified copy of the order of CESTAT is apparent from paragraphs 4 to 6 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CESTAT was submitted to our counsel on 4-12-2007. The Counsel, on the same day, had informed our officer that if an order is sough to be quashed in an appeal, production of the certified copy of such an order is mandatory and if an appeal is filed with attested copy, the same would be returned by the office of the High Court of Karnataka. A letter dated 16-1-2008 was received from the counsel requesting for the certified copy or at least an endorsement from the CESTAT, New Delhi explaining the reasons as to why they are not issuing the certified copy. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, a letter dated 18-1-2008 was once again sent to Registrar, CESTAT, New Delhi, forwarding the counsel's letter and requesting for furnishing of the certifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, it is seen that though it is not apparent as to why an appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the order of CESTAT, New Delhi and the period in prosecuting the said appeal from 8-4-2004 to 16-10-2006 could be condoned, the explanation given for the subsequent period that delay was caused on account of the non-availability of the certified copy of the order of the CESTAT and therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time, cannot be accepted by us. The Department did not take any action after withdrawal of the appeal from the Delhi High Court i.e., on 16-10-2006 till 1-6-2007 on which date, a letter was addressed to the Registrar, CESTAT, New Delhi, requesting for issuance of a fresh certified copy of the order and su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der which was in any way available with the Department so as to reduce the delay which in any way caused by prosecuting the appeal before the Delhi High Court and subsequently could have sought for extension of time to produce the certified copy of the order of CESTAT by making an appropriate application. 11. In our view, the non-availability of the certified copy of the order of CESTAT is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1280 days. Further, it is not a case where the appeal has been filed with such delay along with the certified copy of the order. In fact, an application for dispensation of production of the certified copy of the order of the CESTAT has been filed along with the memorandum of appeal. We fail to understand as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
