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>High Court allows Appeal despite 2192-day delay, emphasizes liberal interpretation of Limitation Act.</h1> <h3>The Principal Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Daman Commissionerate Versus Omnitex Industriex (India) Limited</h3> The Principal Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Daman Commissionerate Versus Omnitex Industriex (India) Limited - 2016 (334) E.L.T. 639 (Bom.) Issues:Delay in filing Appeals condonationIssue 1: Delay in filing AppealsThe judgment addresses the delay in filing the Appeals and the subsequent condonation sought by the Appellants. The Appeals arose from orders passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, with subsequent proceedings before the Gujarat High Court. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the Appeal due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, prompting the Appellants to file the present Appeal in the High Court of Bombay. The Appellants sought condonation of a delay of 2192 days. The Court considered the provisions of Section 35-G(2-A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which allows for the admission of an Appeal after the prescribed period if sufficient cause is shown. The Court also referred to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which excludes the time spent in prosecuting a proceeding before an incorrect forum. Various authorities were cited to support the application of Section 14 in similar cases, emphasizing the need for a liberal interpretation to advance justice.Issue 2: Application of Section 14 of the Limitation ActThe judgment extensively discusses the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in the context of the present case. Reference is made to previous court decisions, including the Supreme Court rulings in M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department. The Court highlighted the five conditions for invoking and applying Section 14, emphasizing the need for both proceedings to be civil, prosecuted with due diligence, and related to the same matter in issue. The Supreme Court's stance on liberally construing Section 14 to serve the cause of justice was reiterated, stressing the exclusion of time spent in pursuing a remedy before an incorrect forum. The judgment emphasized that as long as the party pursues a legal remedy in good faith, the time spent in the deficient proceeding should be excluded to prevent injustice.Issue 3: Condonation of DelayThe Court ultimately decided to condone the delay in filing the Appeals after considering the circumstances and the explanation provided in the Affidavit. The time spent in prosecuting the Appeal before the Gujarat High Court was deemed necessary to be excluded for the purposes of limitation. The Court emphasized that if the remaining period after excluding the time spent in the incorrect forum is 180 days or less, no application for condonation of delay is required. In this case, the Court found sufficient reason to condone the delay and allowed the Notice of Motion in favor of the Appellants without imposing any costs.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, the application of relevant statutory provisions, and the Court's decision to condone the delay in filing the Appeals based on the principles of justice and fairness.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
