TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 953
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the dealing clerk was on leave for 15 days and therefore there was a delay of 28 days in filing the appeals which should be condoned. She relied upon the following case - laws in support of appellant's claim. i) Cosmos Casting India Ltd. Vs. CCE Raipur [2012 (286) ELT 721 (Tri. Del)] ii) Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. CCE Nagpur [2011 (270) ELT 661 (Bom.)] 3. Shri S. K. Mall, and Shri G. P. Thomas, (ARs.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that no justifiable reasons have been given by the appellant regarding the delay in filing the appeals. It was their case that for the first 52 days of appeal period, no action was taken whatsoever by the appellant and there is no justification for condoning the delay. They relied upon the jud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nable time and proper conduct of the concerned party. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of `reasonableness' as it is understood in its general connotation. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right, as accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs and the facts were required to be verified. But what we are impressing upon is that delay should be condoned to do substantial justice without resulting in injustice to the other party. This balance has to be kept in mind by the Court while deciding such applications. In the case of Ramlal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., [AIR 1962 SC 361] this Court took the view: "7. In construing Section 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw Times 739 (SC)], this Court while granting some latitude to the Government in relation to condonation of delay, still held that there must be some way or attempt to explain the cause for such delay and as there was no whisper to explain what legal problems occurred in filing the Special Leave Petition, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. Similarly, in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. A.MD. Bilal & Co., [1999 (108) Excise Law Times 331 (SC)], the Supreme Court declined to condone the delay of 502 days in filing the appeal because there was no satisfactory or reasonable explanation rendered for condonation of delay. The provisions of Order 22 Rule 9, CPC has been the subject matter of judicial scrutiny....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the applicant that the Court should take a very liberal approach and interpret these provisions (Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act) in such a manner and so liberally, irrespective of the period of delay, it would amount to practically rendering all these provisions redundant and inoperative. Such approach or interpretation would hardly be permissible in law. Liberal construction of the expression `sufficient cause' is intended to advance substantial justice which itself presupposes no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant, to whom want of bona fide is imputable. There can be instances where the Court should condone the delay; equally there would be cases where the Court must exercise its dis....