ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE Vs. LORD SHIVA ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation act seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal against the order dated 31st March, 2006 of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange. The appellant has contended that on 25th May, 2006, the counsel was instructed to file an appeal and the appeal had been filed on 5th July, 2006. The certified copy of the impugned order dated 31st January, 2006 was received in the Enforcement Directorate on 22nd February, 2006. The impugned order was examined till 7th March, 2006 and was put up to the Review Committee for consideration and after review on 21st April, 2006 the file was submitted to d. E. for final approval to file the appeal in the High Court. It is stated that from 8th May, 2006 to 16th May, 2006 the competent authority after discussion ordered the appeal to be filed before the Court and from 18th May, 2006 to 24th may, 2006 the Zone was intimated to file the appeal. Since the file was received on 25th May, 2006, the appeal was prepared and could not be filed before the vacation in 2006 which started on 3rd June, 2006 and was filed on 5th july, 2006 and there is a delay of 46 days.

(2.) THE appellant had contended that in the interest of conservation of foreign exchange resources of the country and for their appropriate utilization, and in the interest of economic development of the nation, the delay of 46 days in filing the appeal be condoned as there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on (2000) 9 Supreme court Cases 94, State of Bihar and others v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Another; (1996) 10 Supreme Court Cases 634, Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K. V. Ayisumma; (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 132, State of Haryana v. Chandra mani and Others; (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 123, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353, Collector, Land Acquisition, anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others to contend that the delay is liable to be condoned.

(3.) THE application is opposed by the respondents and reply has been filed contending inter alia that the application does not disclose any bonafide reason for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Reliance has also been placed on 2007 IV AD (Delhi) 458, Union of India v. Wishwa Mittar Bajaj and Sons and others. It has also been contended that the vacation started from 3rd June, 2006 and ended on 3rd July, 2006 and the appeal has been filed on 5th July, 2006 though it could have been filed prior to that and especially since the Registry opened on 29th June, 2006. The other averments made in the application were also denied.