TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Efforts Acknowledged in Condonation of Appeal Delay: Importance of Pursuing Remedies Before Filing</h1> <h3>ATMA TUBE PRODUCT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH</h3> ATMA TUBE PRODUCT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 398 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:- Condonation of Delay in filing appeal due to pursuing remedy before other forums- Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for excluding time spent in pursuing other remedies- Whether delay in filing appeal should be condonedAnalysis:1. Condonation of Delay in filing appeal due to pursuing remedy before other forums:The case involved appeals, stay applications, and Condonation of Delay applications against an order confirming a duty demand and penalty. The delay in filing the appeal was explained as the result of pursuing remedies before the Settlement Commission, High Court, and Supreme Court. The appellant diligently pursued these remedies, leading to a significant delay in filing the appeal.2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for excluding time spent in pursuing other remedies:The appellant argued that the time spent pursuing remedies in other forums should be excluded for computing limitation, citing the decision in Best & Crompton Engg. v. CCE, Chennai and Pasupati Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras. The appellant contended that pursuing remedy before another forum constitutes sufficient cause for the Tribunal to condone the delay.3. Whether delay in filing appeal should be condoned:The Department argued that the appellant was not actively seeking relief against the adjudication order but was attempting to settle the matter. They contended that this case did not fall within the scope of Section 14 and that the delay should not be condoned as the appellant did not comply with the Tribunal's earlier remand order. However, after considering the facts, the Tribunal found that the appellant diligently followed the issue before other authorities, and most of the delay was caused by this pursuit. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal.Overall, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's diligent pursuit of remedies before other forums, leading to the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the circumstances and efforts made by the appellant in pursuing remedies before other authorities when deciding on the condonation of delay in such cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
