CESTAT grants condonation of delay to M/s. Sharma Commercial - Importance of liberal approach The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, condoned the delay of over 27 months in filing an appeal by M/s. Sharma Commercial (P) Ltd. The Tribunal found ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT grants condonation of delay to M/s. Sharma Commercial - Importance of liberal approach
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, condoned the delay of over 27 months in filing an appeal by M/s. Sharma Commercial (P) Ltd. The Tribunal found that the appellant had taken reasonable steps to file the appeal on time, considering the evidence presented, including the dispatch of the appeal through courier, which was later confirmed lost in transit. Emphasizing the need for a liberal approach to prevent meritorious matters from being dismissed due to delays, the Tribunal relied on the precedent set in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji to grant the condonation of delay.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the issue at hand was the condonation of a delay of more than 27 months in filing an appeal by M/s. Sharma Commercial (P) Ltd. The appellant's representative, Shri Bipin Garg, argued that they had taken all reasonable steps to file the appeal within the time limit. He mentioned receiving the Order-in-Original on 1-9-2000, obtaining a demand draft for filing the appeal on 7-11-2000, and sending the appeal through courier on 9-11-2000. The courier company confirmed the receipt, but later informed that the parcel was lost in transit. The appellant had also filed a petition against the courier company. Shri Garg cited the case of Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji to support the plea for condonation, emphasizing the need for a liberal approach to prevent meritorious matters from being dismissed due to delays.
On the other hand, Shri P.M. Rao, representing the respondent, argued against condonation, stating that the appellants should have ensured the appeal was received and recorded by the Tribunal. He contended that the appellants had not provided sufficient reasons for the significant delay in filing the appeal, which spanned over 27 months.
After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal examined the evidence presented by the appellant, including the draft, courier receipt, and the courier company's letter confirming the loss of the parcel. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had indeed dispatched the appeal in a timely manner, and the delay was not due to deliberate actions, negligence, or malice. Citing the precedent set in the case of Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal, therefore, decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The judgment concluded by scheduling the stay application for a hearing on 15-10-2003.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
