CORPORATION OF CHENNAI Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are two applications before us, both by the Corporation of Chennai (Appellant), one praying for condonation of the delay involved in the filing of the appeal and the other seeking waiver of pre -deposit and stay of recovery in respect of an amount of duty of Rs. 12,53,915 covering the period August 1987 to July 1992.

(2.) WE take up the first application, which has been filed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai. The delay sought to be condoned is over 10 years. The order of the Collector of Central Excise impugned in the captioned appeal was received by the appellant on 15.5.1993. The appeal was filed on 2.6.2003 with a delay of over one decade. This delay is sought to be explained thus:

(3.) ACCORDING to Ld. Counsel, the delay has to be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case. The time taken by the Corporation to pursue their case before Governmental authorities for exemption from payment of duty on concrete blocks should be excluded from the period of limitation in terms of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. In this connection, he relies on the decision of the Tribunal in Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, 1992 (62) ELT 820 (T), wherein the question whether the time spent erroneously in appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee was excludible from the period of limitation for an appeal filed later with the Collector (Appeals) against an order of the Deputy Collector, in terms of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, was remanded to the Collector (Appeals). Ld. Counsel also relies on the Madras High Court's decision in Southern Engineering Industries v. Superintendent of Central Excise, 1991 (52) ELT 373 (Mad.), wherein it was held that, as time (7 years) was spent in good faith before High Court, the assessee was entitled to condonation of delay of statutory appeal if filed with Tribunal within four weeks. Reliance has also been placed on the High Court's decision in Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, 1993 (66) ELT 63 (Mad.), wherein a delay of 1 year and 40 days, which was found to have been sufficiently explained, was condoned by the Court after noting that the delay was occasioned by the fact that a Notification was issued by the Central Govt. on 10.12.1987 with retrospective effect from 1.3.1986. Ld. Counsel, further, relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors., 1996 (II) CTC 109, wherein the Apex Court considered the ambit of the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and held that Courts should consider it with pragmatism and justice -oriented approach. Ld. Counsel has also referred to the Tribunal's decision in CCE v. Gujarat State Fertilizer Corporation, 1987 (31) ELT 224 (T), wherein a delay of 27 days involved in the filing of an appeal by the Revenue was condoned, having regard to the modus operandi of the governmental machinery.