2015 (2) TMI 832

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... admitted on the following substantial questions of law raised by the appellant :- "i) Whether the Tribunal is right in not considering the settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs Chandramani (2002 (143) ELT 249 (SC)) that when the State is an appellant, the expression sufficient cause should be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay in order that merit is preferred to scuttle a decision on merits in turning down the case on technicalities of delay in presenting the appeal? ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in refusing to condone the delay without considering the fact that the issu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Chennai III Commissionerate Vs Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.7144/2005). It is further evident from the said order of the Tribunal that though the order in original was originally accepted by the Department, in view of the pendency of similar issue before the Apex Court in C.A.No.1618 of 2005 and since huge amounts were involved, the Department wanted to pursue the legal remedy by way of appeal and as a consequence delay of 37 days occurred. 4. However, the Tribunal, by relying upon the decision in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. V. CCE (1993 (68) ELT 631 (Tribunal), wherein it was observed that after long lapse of several years, if one is allowed to pursue the appeal, it would open the Pandora's Box, held that the re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....non-deliberate delay . 7. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in 2013 (5) CTC 547 (Esha Bhattacharjee V. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, Nafar Academy and others), the Apex Court has enunciated the following guidelines to be adopted while deciding matters relating to condonation of delay :- "15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can be broadly be culled out are: (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an Application for condonation of delay, for the Courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the Application are fanciful, the Courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of Law of Limitation. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be g....