Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1991 (8) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uth Regional Bench at Madras (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) declined to condone the delay in filing the appeals before the said Tribunal and consequently rejected the stay petitions and appeals. Though the order has been passed in a batch of cases on behalf of more than one party, the writ petition before me has been filed by Murali Match Works and therefore, this writ petition is confined to consideration so far as the present petition is concerned. 3. The writ petitioner is a manufacturer of matches and an assessee on the file of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Chittoor I Range, Chittoor. By an order dated 8-11-1982, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand for differential duty of Rs. 1,20,260.10 in terms of Notifi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Finance Act, 1982, is illegal. The petitioners seek a direction to the respondent restraining him from collecting the differential excise duty. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that out of the nine petitioners herein some petitioners had already filed appeals and action is pending in those cases by way of second appeals. It is said that some petitioners have not filed appeals at all and directly filed the writ petition. From the facts stated in the writ petition we do not find that any order directing the payment of differential excise duty was served on the petitioners. It is open to them to pursue such action as may be available to them under the Act questioning either the show-cause notice or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce or otherwise of sufficient cause for the delay and therefore, the failure to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner by condoning the delay resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel would also submit that the Tribunal had a non-discretionary duty to condone the delay in the light of the circumstances pleaded before it and the proper approach should have been whether there was bona fides or lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner in not presenting the appeal within the time stipulated and this not having been done, the order of the Tribunal would be vitiated. 7. The learned counsel relied upon the following judicial pronouncements in respect of his claim : The decision in J.M Bhansali and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion 5 of the Limitation Act, expressed the view that the Court should adopt a liberal approach. The guidelines laid down in the said decision are found stated in paragraph 3 of the judgment which can be usefully referred to as hereunder :- "The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce and is expected to do so." 8. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the claim of the petitioner while reiterating the reasoning contained in the impugned order. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. In my view, even judging by liberal standards the delay in the present case could not be said to have been sufficiently explained and unlike the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the delay in the instant case is substantial. As pointed out by the Tribunal, the order of the Collector of the Central Excise Department, was on 15-3-1983 and served on 5-4-1983. Even in approaching the Andhra Pradesh High Court, there had been delay. There is absolute .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates