STATE GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA THROUGH EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, PANCHKULA (RE: HMT MACHINE TOOLS LTD.) Vs. BIFR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE Government of Haryana, Excise and Taxation Officer, has filed this appeal under section 25 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as SICA) against the order dated 12.6.2008 passed by Bench No. 1 of Board for Industrial' and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as BIER) and along with the appeal has also filed MA No. 311 of 2009, an application for condonation of delay under proviso to sub -section (1) of section 25 of SICA.

(2.) AS per the appellant itself, this appeal is barred by limitation of 354 days. It is contended in the application on behalf of State that the delay in filing of appeal is procedural. Therefore, placing reliance on decisions in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandramani : (1996) 3 Comp LJ 24 (SC): (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of Haryana v CESTAT, (2008) 224 ELT 58 and also on a decision of the hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of State of Haryana v AAIFR and others, (2010) 4 Comp LJ 642 (P&H), the learned representative appearing for the appellant Government submitted that the delay be condoned. It is further contended that the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of State of Haryana v AAIFR, (2010) 4 Comp LJ 642 (P&H) cited supra has clearly held that (paragraph 16): We find that the State filed an appeal which was barred by limitation but the State was taking other steps and proceeding before the BIFR for implementation of the scheme continued. The observations of the AAIFR that in no situation there could be condonation of delay beyond 60 days under section 25 of the SICA is not a correct interpretation of law. The said provision cannot be read as mandatory, as has been held in several decisions (See Kailash v Vankku : AIR 2005 SC 2441. In any case, even if the said view is correct, this court is not debarred from setting aside order of the BIFR.

(3.) THE advocate and representative appearing for the respondent opposed the contention of the appellant State and submitted that under section 25(1) of (sic) read with the proviso, a period of 45 days has been prescribed for filing appeal and this Authority can only condone the delay of 15 days and not beyond it is therefore, argued that this Authority has no jurisdiction to condone delay of more than 15 days and cannot entertain an appeal beyond the period of 60 days.