Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M. K. Enterprises (Madhya Pradesh High court)
Appeal Number : CEA No. 3/2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 09/07/2015
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (4251) Madhya Pradesh HC (37)

Only explanation which is given is in para 3 of the application and that is the present appeal is filed on 18.03.2008 with a delay of 226 days just to avoid any legal or technical objections”

On going through the aforesaid reason, it is clear that the appellant has filed the application in a most casual manner, without justifying the reason for condonation of such a huge delay. In the circumstances, in the absence of any sufficient cause to explain the delay of 227 days, in our considered view, no case for condonation of delay is made out. High Court followed the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. AIR 2012 SC 1506.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH : INDORE

Commissioner of Central Excise

Vs

M. K. Enterprises

CEA No. 3/2013

Final Order : dated 09th July, 2015

Shri P. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant.

Heard on the question of admission.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the question involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the order dated 14.07.2014.

The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.07.2014 passed in M. A. No.1133/2008 dismissed the central excise appeals. The order reads as under :-

This order shall govern disposal of Central Excise Appeals No.18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 61, 63, 64 & 65 of 2011. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Central Excise Appeal No.31/2011.

Heard on IA No.3255/2008, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

The delay is of 227 days.

In the application following is the explanation offered for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal: –

“1. That, the Applicant has preferred the present Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 35 G-2 of Central Excise Act, 1944 being aggrieved by the order No.48-61/07 CX dated 06.02.2007.

2. That, in matter MA No.2605/07 the department has challenged the common orders passed by CESTAT in order No.48-61/07 CX dated 06.02.2007 wherein the CESTAT decided all the Appeals by one common orders.

3. That, the present Appeal is filed on 18.03.2008 with a delay of 226 days just to avoid any legal or technical objections.

4. That, the delay is bona fide and deserves to be condoned by the Hon’ble Court.

5. That, an affidavit in support of present application is annexed herewith.** Thus, only explanation which is given is in para 3 of the application and that is “the present appeal is filed on 18.03.2008 with a delay of 226 days just to avoid any legal or technical objections”.

On going through the aforesaid reason, it is clear that the appellant has filed the application in a most casual manner, without justifying the reason for condonation of such a huge delay.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. AIR 2012 SC 1506 is directly on the point. In this case, there was a delay of 427 days in filing the appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court and the certified copy of the High Court judgment was applied after four months with no explanation why it was not applied for within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court, after examining other dates mentioned in the affidavit of the person-in-charge of the case to justify the delay found that there was delay at every stage with no explanation for the cause of delay. The Supreme Court also took serious note of the casual -manner in which the Government departments are functioning showing virtually no respect to the law of limitation.  And, while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, the Supreme Court has made the following observation:

“The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”

The aforesaid view has again been affirmed by the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amar Nath Yadav [(2014) 2 SCC 422].

In the circumstances, in the absence of any sufficient cause to explain the delay of 227 days, in our considered view, no case for condonation of delay is made out.

Consequently, application (IA No.3255/2008) deserves to be and is hereby rejected.

As a result, the Appeal is also dismissed.

Considering the aforesaid so also the fact that the question involved in this appeal and the appeals, which were decided on 14.07.2014 are identical and similar therefore, we dispose of this appeal also in terms of the aforesaid order.

With the aforesaid, this appeal stands dismissed.

(P. K. Jaiswal)                 (J. K. Jain)
Judge                             Judge

GST Course Join

More Under Excise Duty

Posted Under

Category : Excise Duty (4154)
Type : Judiciary (12078)
Tags : high court judgments (4566)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured Posts