TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 537
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he authorities below by the orders under appeal have refused to condone the delay in filing of the first appeal on the ground that the appellant herein did not file an application for the same. 3. Facts may be noted in brief. 4. Against the order dated 26-9-2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Custom, Lucknow, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30-1-2002. When the appeal came up for hearing, it transpired that the appeal was filed beyond 60 days but within 90 days from the date of service of the order. The appeal was dismissed as barred by time as there was no application for condonation of delay when it was filed. The said order has been confirmed by the Tribunal. 5. Heard learned counsel for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otherwise entitled to it. 9. To the same effect is M/s. Markland Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 Gujarat 44. It has been held that in the absence of written application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned. 10. Identical view has been taken by this Court in Indrasani Devi v. D.D.C., Varanasi, 1981 ALJ 637, which has been reiterated in Muneshwari Devi v. Jitan Singh, 1993 AWC 792. 11. More or less, the same view has been taken in the case of Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. Banwari Lal and others, 1997 AWC 622. 12. The filing of the application for condonation of delay is in the realm of procedure. The procedure as far as possible cannot and should be interpreted in such a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....struction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi v. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575 and State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749. 15. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353 = 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.), the following has been held. "It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 16. Taking into consideration what has been stated above, in our considered view, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting the appeal as barred by time without giving an opportun....