ANDHRA CEMENT LTD. Vs. DY. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANDHRA Cement Ltd. - petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning order dated 12th August, 2011 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) on an application filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur ('Excise Department', for short) - respondent for condonation of delay in challenging the order dated 21st July, 2008, passed by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR).

(2.) AAIFR has held that starting point of limitation would be the date when the respondent received copy of the order dated 22nd December, 2009, from the BIFR.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the respondent was made aware of the order dated 21st July, 2008, by way of letter dated 8th October, 2008 written by the petitioner enclosing therewith summary of record of proceedings held before Bench No. 1 of BIFR on 21st July, 2008. The said letter was received by the respondent on 24th October, 2008. Reliance is placed upon the letter dated 7th November, 2008 written by the Office of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Guntur to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Guntur/Vijaywada. Our attention is drawn to the legal opinion dated 17th June, 2009, obtained by the respondent from the Ministry of Law and Justice. Reliance is placed on decisions of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 2207/2007, Vijay Kumar Mills Ltd. and Another vs. ICICI Bank and Ors., decided on 10th July, 2008, Civil Writ No.5408/2007, Textile Labour Union, Nadiad vs. UOI and Ors. decided on 17th August, 2007 and Girdhar Lal M. Pittie and Anr. vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and Others, : (1998) 94 CC 225in support of the proposition that the date of knowledge is an important factor for construing and deciding when limitation should begin and failure of the respondent to apply for certified copy within a reasonable time should be a factor, which was highlighted but not duly considered by the AAIFR. Reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Postmaster General and Others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr, : (2012) 3 SCC 563 to highlight that lackadaisical approach should not be condoned and delays in matters of this nature could cause prejudice. It is highlighted that the petitioner has already made full payment of the principal amount under the rehabilitation scheme and Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the petitioner quashing penalty and interest in view of the order dated 21st July, 2008 passed by the BIFR.