TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (11) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nduly long period despite the fact that Government was directed as far back as 26-2-1990 by the Supreme Court to explain the delay. In the process, it is the revenue which has suffered. The facts indicative of the callousness are as follows ; (a) On 16th June, 1976, the Central Government issued a Notification No. 198 of 1976 under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, giving substantial relief to various products including tyres and tubes. The Notification was to remain in force till 31st March, 1979. (b) By Notification No. 141 of 1978 issued by the Central Government on 14th July, 1978, the product in question, viz. tyres and tubes, came to be deleted. (c) In the circumstances, on 10th October, 1978, Miscellaneous Petition No. 142....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ese observations are required to be mentioned because even as of date, the same position continues and despite opportunity being given to the Central Government by the Supreme Court, as stated hereinafter, the same cavalier attitude on the part of the Central Government continues. (h) Against the said order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 11th January, 1989, the Department preferred S.L.P. to the Supreme Court. (i) On 26th February, 1990, the Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the S.L.P. preferred by the Central Government. However, liberty was given to the Central Government to move this Court for review after filing a proper affidavit explaining the delay. (j) On 1st March 1990, the certified copy of the order of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ners removed two other office objections. At this stage, it may be mentioned that although the Review Petition was solemnly declared on 10th May, 1990, it was not duly signed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III. This was one of the office objections and it took more than two years for the Officer to come to the Court and sign the Review Petition which was done on 27th July, 1992. (n) On 30th August 1993, the Review Petitioner filed the present Notice of Motion together with the affidavit dated 6th August, 1993 for condonation of delay. This Motion was filed after 3 years and 3 months. The Government took 3 years and 3 months to remove the office objection. The affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion dated 6th A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances, they have filed an affidavit on 4th November 1993. Once again, no explanation was given as to when the objections were raised by the office and why were they not removed for more than 3 years. One more opportunity was further given by us and now an affidavit has been filed on 10th November, 1993 by Nandkumar Shantaram Nagvekar, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, m the said affidavit dated 10th November, 1993, we are now informed for the first time that the office raised 6 to 7 objections on 14th May, 1990 as stated above. Surprisingly, in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit it is stated that the Ministry of Law and Justice was not aware that the Review Petition was under objection and, therefore, it was not numbered. This is a fals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tle of this Notice of Motion is not typed in a proper manner. 3. Before concluding our order, we would like to mention one more mis-statement of fact in the affidavit dated 10th November, 1993. In paragraph 8 of the said affidavit, it has been stated as follows : ".... The said Notice of Motion was made returnable before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurdukar and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jhunjhunwala on 17th September, 1993, however Notice of Motion came up for hearing before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kantharia and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kapadia on 27-10-1993." The above-quoted portion of paragraph 8 also does not reflect the correct position. The present Notice of Motion came to be assigned to t....