TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 10-5-2004 (Annexure -E) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai (for short "the Tribunal") whereby the learned Tribunal refused to condone the delay of 84 days and thereby dismissed the application for condonation of delay (Annexure-D) in Appeal No. F/814/04 on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of delay in the impugned order at Annexure-E is that there was authorized signatory of the proprietary concern and, therefore, the proprietor could have been directed or instructed his authorized signatory to prefer the appeal and file it before the Tribunal within the statutory period of limitation. This suggests the condition of the sole proprietor of the petitioner was good, which in fact no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay. Last but not the least the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds stated by the learned Tribunal in its order for not condoning the delay of only 84 days were not at all proper and legal. 7.In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure-E passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the application for condonation of delay (Annexure -D) filed in appeal before the Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
