PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER Vs. ESSAR OIL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requesting to condone the delay of 539 days caused in preferring the tax appeal.

(2.) Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that as such, there was no deliberate negligence on the part of the applicant/department in not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. It is submitted that from the very beginning, it was decided to prefer an appeal against the order impugned, however, for the reasons stated in the application, the same could not be filed. It is further submitted that in fact against the concerned Superintendent, Central Excise, who actually did not take any action to file an appeal; though he was supposed to see that appeal is filed and because of whose deliberate act of omission, the appeal was not filed, departmental action has been initiated. Therefore, it is requested to condone the delay and give an opportunity to submit the case of merit, rather non-suit the applicant on the ground of technical delay. It is further submitted that as such applicant has a very meritorious case and if the delay is not condoned, in that case, the Revenue is likely to suffer.

(3.) Present application is vehemently opposed by Ms. Priyank Parikh, learned advocate appearing for M/s. Nanavati Associates appearing on behalf of the respondent. An affidavit-in-reply is also filed opposing the present application. It is submitted that merely because the department was sitting on the papers, appeal is not filed within the period of limitation and/or at the earliest, by itself cannot be a ground to condone the huge delay. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Post Master General v. Living Media India Limited reported in (2012) 207 Taxman 163 = 2012 (277) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) and a decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in case of Commissioner of Customs v. Karan Monomers P. Limited reported in 2013 (297) E.L.T. 522 (Guj.), it is requested to dismiss the present application.