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>Court directs Tribunal to restore appeal, prioritizing merits over technicalities, emphasizing cause for delay.</h1> <h3>DUROELEX EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. & SERVICE TAX</h3> The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the Tribunal to restore the appeal for a decision on the merits. ... Delay in filing appeal- In this case Tribunal reject the appeal only on the ground that in the original order passed, there is a mention that, if for any reason, the petitioner is aggrieved by the original order, he has to question the same within 90 days from the date of the order. Apart from this reason, Tribunal has not assigned any other reason for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Held that-the delay is condone if sufficient reason exist thus, the Tribunal is expected to find out whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause. The Tribunal is directed to restore the appeal. Issues:Challenge to the legality of orders passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding delay in filing an appeal.Analysis:The petitioner questioned the legality of the orders passed by the Tribunal due to a delay of 145 days in filing an appeal against the Commissioner of Customs' order. The Tribunal rejected the appeal solely based on the mention in the original order that any grievance must be raised within 90 days. However, the Tribunal failed to consider if the petitioner showed sufficient cause for the delay, as is required by law. The Tribunal has the discretion to condone delays if justified reasons are presented by the applicant, which was not properly assessed in this case.The High Court found that the petitioner had indeed shown sufficient cause for the delay in approaching the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and proceeded to decide the appeal on its merits. Therefore, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the Tribunal to restore the appeal on its Board for a decision on the merits. The Court's decision highlighted the importance of considering sufficient cause for delays in legal proceedings and ensuring that appeals are decided based on merit rather than technicalities.In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the need for a thorough assessment of reasons for delays in approaching the Tribunal and highlighted the Tribunal's duty to consider sufficient cause shown by the applicant. The decision underscored the principle that appeals should be decided on their merits rather than being rejected based solely on technical grounds such as time limits mentioned in original orders.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
