TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad, ShastriBhavanAnnexBuilding, Chennai-600006. 2. The Commissioner of Customs, No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy-620001. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Dumas, Pondicherry. (in W.P.Nos.26451,26437, 25540 & 25159/2007) CORAM: The Honourable Mr. Justice M.M.Sundresh PRAYER IN W.P.NOS.26451,26437,25540 & 25159/2007: Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, made in Final Order No.641 to 645/2007, Stay Order No.496 to 499/2007 and Miscellaneous Order No.475 to 479/2007, dated 28.5.2007, in Appeal No.C/588/06, C/390/06, C/586/06 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have been filed. 3. Shri.A.K.Jayaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the delay is neither willful nor wanton and the first respondent/Tribunal ought not to have adopted hyper technical view in dismissing the appeals. The learned counsel further submitted that the delay is not substantial and proper reasons have been assigned for condonation. It is also submitted that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal that there was no explanation subsequent to the Doctor Certificate stating that Shri.Radhakrishna Sharma was fit enough to do the work cannot be accepted, since the literal interpretation cannot be given on the Certificate by the Doctor. The entire circumstances will have to be seen particularly when the autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7.2007, 06.08.2007 respectively. The impugned orders have been passed on 30.05.2007. It is seen from the records that the notices have been ordered to the respondents in the year 2007 itself. When the writ petition is pending for more than 2 years and when the matter is to be taken up for final hearing, this Court is of the opinion that the question of alternative remedy need not be go into at this stage. It is further to be seen what is sought to be challenged before this Hon'ble Court is the refusal of the first respondent in condoning the miscellaneous applications filed by the petitioners. Therefore admittedly there is no adjudication on merits. The question of non-availing of the alternative remedy will have to be seen on the facts of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....suffered certain viral infection, has immediately got rejuvenated with full rigour and has to attend all his office work. 5. It is well settled principle of law that the technicalities and substantial justice are pitted against each other and the Courts would always lean in favour of substantial justice rather than technicalities for non-suiting the petitioner on the ground that the appeal has not been filed within the time stipulated in spite of the fact that the authorities are conferred with the power to condone the delay. Likewise, the limitation prescribed is not for destruction of statutory right and is only to give finality without protracting the matter endlessly. 6. Here is the case where the petitioner sought for condoning the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e taking into consideration of the above said factual position, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would suffice that all the petitioners in each of the writ petitions will have to be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the said Legal Aid Authority. The said sum will have to be paid within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the writ petitions would stand dismissed automatically. If the petitioners comply with the conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court, the first respondent is directed to take the appeal on file and decide the same on merits in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel ....