High Court quashes Order-in-Original, preventing injustice, accepts delay grounds, grants relief, sets aside rejection.

The High Court, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction, quashed the Order-in-Original, emphasizing prevention of gross injustice to the petitioner. The Court found merit in the petitioner's case and accepted grounds for condoning the delay, granting relief by allowing the petition and setting aside the rejection based on technical limitation grounds. The request for interest on the refund was not entertained.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner seeks writ of Certiorari to quash Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal, stay recovery pending petition, grant interim relief, and pass appropriate orders. The main issue involves the rejection of the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund Claim and Adjudication Process:
The petitioner filed a refund claim of Rs. 1 lakh based on an inquiry related to excess duty drawback payment. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund, but the Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the departmental appeal, leading to a challenge before CESTAT. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision, resulting in a fresh show cause notice for recovery of the refund amount.

2. Condonation of Delay:
The petitioner challenged the recovery order before the Commissioner (Appeals) after a delay of five months. The Commissioner rejected the appeal citing a delay exceeding the statutory limit of 30 days under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal upheld this decision, relying on the Singh Enterprises case, which limited the condonation period to 30 days.

3. Judicial Review and Extraordinary Jurisdiction:
The petitioner contended that the authorities should have considered the merits of the case instead of solely focusing on the limitation issue. The High Court recognized its extraordinary powers under Article 226 to intervene in cases of extreme hardship or injustice. Citing previous judgments, the Court emphasized the need for sparing exercise of such powers.

4. Decision and Relief Granted:
After considering submissions from both sides, the High Court found that the petitioner had a strong case on merit and had provided acceptable grounds for condoning the delay. The Court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the Order-in-Original dated 23-2-2009, emphasizing the need to prevent gross injustice to the petitioner. The petitioner's request for interest on the refund was not entertained, and the petition was allowed accordingly.

This detailed analysis highlights the legal journey of the petitioner seeking relief through the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction due to the rejection of their appeal on technical grounds of limitation, ultimately resulting in the quashing of the impugned order.

---