TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply to the show cause notice within 30 days in regard to the 4 points raised in the show cause notice. The show cause notice was issued without prejudice to the right of the Department to take such other proceedings which are permissible under the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the rules framed thereunder. The company submitted its reply to the show cause notice and after considering the contentions raised by the respective parties the Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the payment of Rs. 21,99,959/- under Section 11A(2) of the Act read with Rule 57U/57AH of the Rules. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 21,99,959/- the amount equal to that of the duty and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lac under Rule 57U/57AH. The o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the facts which appear from the record before us. We may also notice here that during hearing of the case we had even called report on the case from the Registry of the Court which again shows that the facts have not been correctly mentioned in the application. 5. From the copy of the order of the Appellate Tribunal placed on record before us it is clear that the order was passed on 6-3-2002 copy thereof was ready on 26-3-2002 and there is no document on record to show that as to how the Appellant has received the copy on 11-4-2002. Even if, it is presumed in favour of the Appellant that copy was received on 11-4-2002, then they had allegedly filed the Reference in the Registry of this Court on 25-10-2002 apparently, beyond the period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondents in dealing with the legal matters. Wherever the Statute provides a limitation it must be construed and applied strictly as a definite right accrues to the other party on expiry of such period before the other party can be divested of such benefit there should be definite and proper explanation on record before the Court to condone the delay in filing an appeal. Condonation of delay can not be claimed as a matter of right and such discretion should not be exercised by the Court or the authorities in a mechanical manner. Legislative intent behind prescribing the period of limitation normally is to create a bar in institution of the proceedings upon expiry of the period except for the exceptions specifically provided in that pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 5 of the Act. Thus, as already noticed this memorandum of reference application was never filed on the counter of the Registry of the Court. The defect even if was curable, was permitted to become a illegality and in fact a bar to the very entertainment of the appeal after a lapse of more than 3 years. We may refer to the judgment of the Court in the case of Punjab State etc. v. Onkar Nath and Anr., 1998 (4) Indian Civil Cases 303 where the Court has held as under :- 9. In the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, JT 1996 (3) S.C. 371 : 1996 (3) Indian Civil Cases 14 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Court may add some-what liberal approach in accepting such explanation in the case of State. It is clear t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any explanation, much less a reasonable or satisfactory one had been offered by the respondent State for condonation of the inordinate delay of 565 days. 11. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran (supra), this Court in the case of Gram Panchayat, Malot v. Prem Singh, CM. No. 4751 and 4852-C of 1997 and R.S.A. No. 2873 of 1997, 1998 (3) Indian Civil Cases 95, declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the application preferred by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in that case. Furthermore, the Court in the case of M/s. Mauria Udyog and others v. Shubh Karan and another, R.S.A. No. 2340 of 1996, decided on 10-10-1996 held as under :- "The term sufficien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions there is no averment as to what appened after 25-10-2002 till 1-3-2005. 7. We cannot help but to observe that conduct of the Department is not satisfactory in the present case and it also does not meet the minimum standard of administrative function in the Government department particularly when it relates to recovery of revenue. There is no cause shown much less a sufficient cause for condonoing the delay. The application is vague and no satisfactory explanation has been rendered in the application which could persuade the Court to condone such a long delay in filing the appeal. 8. We dismiss these applications and consequently, the appeal does not survive for consideration being hopelessly barred by time. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
