AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....awing our attention to the issue involved, he submits that the same relates to the inclusion of cost of wooden crates used for special/secondary packing in respect of the glass sheets manufactured and cleared by the respondents. Commissioner (Appeals) while holding in favour of the assessee has relied upon the earlier two orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) which were in favour of the assessee. The appeal filed by the Department against one of such orders was rejected by the Tribunal and no further appeal against the order of the Tribunal was preferred by the Department. As such by relying upon the principle of res judicata, Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that inasmuch as the earlier orders were in favour of the respondents, the order impugned before him is required to be set aside. He ordered accordingly. 3. It is the Revenue's case in their condonation application that the Tribunal while deciding the disputed issue in favour of the assessee by their earlier order No. C-II/2933/02-WZB, dated 4-10-2002 relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CCE v. MRF Ltd. [1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)] as also in the case of M/s. Geep Inds. Corporation v. CC [1997....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the proof by sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the extraordinary restriction vested in the Court. What counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause and shortness of the delay is one of the circumstances to be taken into account in using the discretion. In Para 11 of the judgment, it was observed that what constitutes sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules and the discretion vested in the courts cannot be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression sufficient cause should receive a liberal construction and unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. 6. Reference and reliance also stand made on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji [1987 (28) E.L.T.185 (S.C.)] laying down that liberal approach is required to be adopted for condonation of delay and the principles required to be followed were l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of M/s. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd., being strongly relied upon by the Revenue, is not applicable to the facts of their case. 8. After considering the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the present case is not a simple and regular case of condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue, though we note that the delay is not of a few days but the same is around 440 days. We are aware of the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observing that keeping in view the slow pace adopted by the Government officers/agencies and encumbered process of pushing the files from one table to another consume delay, intentional or otherwise, considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature and as such certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. The sufficient cause, therefore is required to be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. 9. While applying the above guidelines laid down by various judicial decisions from time to time to the facts of the present case, we find that apart from the fact tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the subsequent Committee of Commissioners as empowered to review the decision already taken by the Committee of Commissioners stands decided by umpteen number of decisions. The Hon'ble High Court of P&H in the case of CCE v. Apsco Prefabs Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (226) E.L.T. 508 (P&H) held that once jurisdictional Commissioner accepted order passed by first appellate authority and decided for not filing an appeal against the same, he cannot review his order by changing his mind without giving any valid reasons. As such, the view adopted by the Tribunal that the Commissioner has no powers to review his own decision of not filing appeal against an order was approved by the Hon'ble High Court and as such the delay in filing appeal was not condoned by observing that there was no sufficient reasons. In the present case, we find that the system of reviewing the orders by a Committee of Commissioners consisting of two Commissioners was introduced and it is not the jurisdictional Commissioner, but Committee of two Commissioners especially constituted to apply their mind to the orders passed by the authorities and for taking a decision as to whether the same were required to be accepted or appea....