Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a delay of about 22 years in filing the restoration application could be condoned and the dismissed excise appeals restored on the basis of alleged financial hardship, pre-deposit compliance, and pendency under rehabilitation proceedings.
Analysis: The Tribunal had dismissed the restoration request on the ground that the delay was extraordinary and unsupported by any acceptable explanation. The Court held that the record showed prolonged inaction, negligence, and absence of bona fides. The appellant had not acted with due diligence after dismissal of the appeals, and neither payment of amounts over the years nor reference to rehabilitation proceedings constituted sufficient cause for reviving appeals after such a long lapse. The liberal approach to delay condonation applies only where negligence, inaction, and want of bona fides are absent; on the facts, that standard was not met.
Conclusion: The delay was not condonable and restoration of the appeals was rightly refused. The challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A restoration application filed after an inordinate delay cannot be entertained unless the applicant shows sufficient cause supported by bona fide and diligent conduct; prolonged inaction and negligence defeat condonation and restoration.