TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue of the product for the purposes of levying the excise duty. According to the petitioner this position has been upheld by the order of the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal Nos. E/676/94-A E/1647/94-A, dated 5-2-1996 [1996 (83) E.L.T. 334 (Tribunal)]. According to the petitioner the Tribunal had come to a finding of fact that extra numbers of bags in excess of one supplied along with the machine duly fitted will not be its component parts and they do not form part of the assessable value. The said order was passed for the period August, 1992 to January, 1993. 2. Mr. Sudhir Chandra appearing for the petitioner submits that for the present period also the same principle should be applied and only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals)] within three months from the date of communication to him of such decision or order. Provided that [Commissioner (Appeals)] may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months, allow it to be presented within a further period of three months. (2) Every appeal under this section shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner." 4. According to Mr. Sudhir Chandra, his clients were not aware with the provisions of Section 35, moreover, due to the circumstances beyond the control of his clients, their Counsels having fallen ill for considerable length of time the appeal could not be filed. In this connectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... every seconds delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Section 29(2) are applicable even in the instant case where there is a time limit prescribed by the special Act. Section 29(2) makes it abundantly clear that Section 5 will be applicable in the present case. Section 35 lays down a period of three months of file an appeal and within a further period of three months on satisfaction of the Commissioner (Appeals). This in my view will not preclude the appellate authority to hear the appeal filed beyond the period of three months if sufficient cause is shown for the delay in filing the appeal. The reading of Section 35 does not show that Section 29(2) and Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been excluded expressly by the provision of the said Act. In that view of the matter also I hold tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
