9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cious manner in rejecting the application for condoning the delay. I am of the view that there is no need to discuss the facts elaborately. The petitioner has received the orders of the second3. respondent on 29-3-1998, 15-4-1998 and 17-4-1998, respectively. Against which, the appeals were preferred before the first respondent with a delay of 91 days, 83 days and 81 days, respectively. The petitioner also has filed an application for condoning the delay as per Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The reason given by the petitioner for the delay is that the unit was closed since October, 1997 when the Managing Director faced family problems who forced to go to his native place during the period of second week of March to second we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeals have been filed within the period condonable by the first respondent as per the proviso to Section 35(1) of the said Act, the first respondent ought to have entertained the appeal by condoning the delay. 6.On the contrary, learned Counsel for the first respondent contended that the first respondent has disposed of the application for condoning the delay, properly. Though the petitioner has pleaded that he was suffering from jaundice, no material has been placed before the first respondent with regard to his sickness and as such the first respondent has rightly rejected the plea of the petitioners. Even with regard to the lockout of the factory, when admittedly the postal covers have been received by his staff, it is the duty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no regular staff of the factory or the administration office is working. More over the petitioner has also stated that there was some family problem and he had been to his native place and was suffering from jaundice. Considering the fact that the appeals have been filed within the period specified under the proviso to Section 35(1) of the Act, I am of the view that the first respondent could have exercised his discretion in a lenient manner, especially, when a ruling of the Supreme Court is to the effect that the provisions of the Limitation Act has to be considered liberally in an even-handed manner to give benefits to the litigants. Too much of strictness is not necessary since justice will be the end. Considering all the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
