9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by Revenue for condoning the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal. 2. Shri P.K. Ray, learned D.R., submitted that the delay has been caused on account of consulting the Chief Commissioner; that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, (1988) 3 SCC 132 that when the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be of Chief Commissioner; that in the application for condonation of delay, it has been clearly mentioned that the impugned Order had been accepted by the Commissioner and only when the Chief Commissioner directed the filing of appeal, the appeal had been filed beyond the time limit of three months which is not permissible. He relied upon the decision in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh-I v. Vishwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Union of India v. Suresh N. Shetty, 1986 (25) E.L.T. 657 (Kar.) wherein it has been held that in assessing what constitutes "sufficient cause" court cannot exclude from consideration the circumstances which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government and that the words "sufficient cause" must genera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. In respect of the delay caused by the State in filing the appeal, the Supreme Court has held that State, which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. Both the Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
