Allowed

M/S. Padmini Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue

Telangana HC10 Sept 2013WP/24440/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to condone the 170-day delay in filing an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal before CESTAT, adopting a liberal approach to enable the petitioner to pursue statutory remedy, subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07.05.2013 set aside; application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before CESTAT allowed subject to payment of Rs. 2,000 costs.

M/S. Padmini Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Board of… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.24440 OF 2013

¶4

Date: 10.09.2013

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. Padmini Pipes Pvt. Ltd.

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

And

¶9

Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance Rep. by its Chairman, Having its office at North Block New Delhi, and two others

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.24440 OF 2013

¶14

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶15

By order dated 15.12.2003 passed by the 2^nd respondent the petitioner was assessed to excise duty and penalty and aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (CESTAT). By order dated 17.06.2011 the CESTAT remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. In pursuance thereof the 2^nd respondent passed a fresh order dated 27.02.2012. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the CESTAT along with an

¶16

application for stay. Since there was delay in filing the said appeal, the petitioner has also moved an application to condone the delay. The said application for condonation of delay was dismissed by the CESTAT by order dated 07.05.2013 which is assailed in this writ petition before us.

¶17

We have heard Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri V.Gopala Krishna Gokhale, the learned Standing Counsel for the Customs & Central Excise appeared for the respondents.

¶18

It is pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner was suffering from severe back pain and he was also under treatment for eye problem and therefore he could not prefer the appeal within the statutory period. The said plea was disbelieved by the CESTAT and thus the impugned order came to be passed dismissing the petition for condonation of delay.

¶19

It is to be noticed that the delay is of 170 days and the petitioner has placed before this Court several documents to substantiate his plea that he was unwell at the relevant point of time. It is pleaded by him that though the said documents were given to his counsel the same could not be placed before the Appellate Tribunal. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that this it is a fit matter for adopting a liberal approach and condone the delay on reasonable terms so as to enable the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal.

¶20

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.05.2013 is set aside and the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the CESTAT against the Order in Original dated 27.02.2012 shall stand allowed, subject to the condition of the petitioner paying cost of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent No.3 by way of challan within a period of four weeks from today.

¶21

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed at the stage of

¶22

admission. No costs.

¶23

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

¶24

Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶25

____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶26

________________

¶27

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶28

Date: 10.09.2013

¶29

Mva

M/S. Padmini Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Padmini Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chittoory Pradeeth Swamy, Vs State Bank of India, Rep.by its Authorised Officer

Janab Nikath Unissa Begum Vs B. Subba Rao

The Special Deputy Collector, Vs Patel Bucha Reddy

D. Mallikarjuna Reddy, Vs Andhra Bank

M/s.Suryalatha Spinning Mills Ltd., Kalawakurthy, Vs The Licencing officer

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M/s Sri Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill