JAGRUT TEXTILES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The service of rule is waived by Mr.Akshay Mehta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government.

(2.) Heard. The only point which is advanced before us in this petition is, about the mistake in typographical version leading into delay of 13 days in filing the Appeal before the Respondent No.2, and in absence of any application for condonation of delay, the Appeal came to be dismissed on the ground of Appeal having been filed beyond the period of limitation. It appears also that the Appellate Authority has observed that the petitioner herein, Appellant before the Authority, had wrongly claimed the date of receipt of O.I.O. on 6.11.1998 and thereby tried to mislead the Department. It is also found from the impugned order that the Appellate Authority noticed, the delay of 13 days, is gross delay due to negligence on the part of the appellant, petitioner herein, and instead of pleading for condonation of delay the petitioner tried to hide the actual date of receipt of order in original. That is how treating the Appeal as time barred under Section 35(1)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, without going into merit of the case it came to be dismissed on 29.9.1998, and hence this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) It is true that there was delay of 13 days in filing the Appeal before the respondent No.2, instead of filing of application for condonation of delay, the date of receipt of the order in original was shown in such a way which was misleading the department. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in ths petition before us is that it was mistake and the mistake should not come in the way of justice being done on merit. In other words, since the Appeal is not heard on merits, the opportunity for application for condonation of delay is sought, so that the substantial justice may not be sacrificed on the alter of processual law.