TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.2 of 2014, there was a delay of more than 20 months whereas in STA No.3 of 2013, there was a delay of more than 24 months in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). For brevity, the facts are being taken from STA No. 2 of 2014. 2. This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994 (in short "the Act") read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, against the orders dated 10.9.2013 (Annexure A-6) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi; dated 6.2.2013 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh and dated 31.1.2013 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Ropar, clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the demand of service tax and also imposed penalty of equal amount. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal dated 7.1.2013 (Annexure A-3) before the Commissioner (Appeals). As the appeal was barred by limitation, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 6.2.2013 (Annexure A-4) rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal being time barred. Still dissatisfied with the order dated 6.2.2013 (Annexure A-4), the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 10.9.2013 (Annexure A-6) dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. Hence, the present appeal. 4. We have heard learned counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate-Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil." 7. It was further noticed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 892 as under:- ".....It is not necessary at this stage to discuss each and every judgment cited before us for the simple reason that Section 5 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly shows sufficient cause for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period. The meaning to be assigned to the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in Section 5 of the 1963 Act should be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied in deciding such cases. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. and R.B. Ramlingam's cases (supra) noticed that the courts should adopt liberal approach where delay is of short period whereas the proof required should be strict where the delay is inordinate. Further, it was also observed that judgments dealing with the condonation of delay may no....