Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Chattisgarh High Court

The Principal Commissioner Of Central ... vs M/S Steel Authority Of India Ltd. 25 ... on 19 February, 2018

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ram Prasanna Sharma

                                      1

                                                                      NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          MCC No. 672 of 2017

    The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax, Central Excise And
     Customs Tikrapara, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

                                                              ---- Petitioner

                                   Versus

    M/s Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai Chhattisgarh.

                                                           ---- Respondent

For Petitioner Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 19/02/2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

I.A.No.1

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 2670 days in filing the application.

2. Shri Vinay Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the delay in moving the restoration application is not negligent or mala fide, but it has occurred bona fidely for the reasons mentioned in the application.

3. Per contra, Shri Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent, would vehemently oppose the application. He would submit that for each day even for each month or each year, the explanation has not been offered. To buttress his contention, he 2 would refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Postmaster General and Others v. Living Media India Limited and Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Nagaland v Lipok AO and others reported in 2005 (183) ELT 337, wherein it has been observed that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the application for restoration deserves to be condoned.

5. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 is allowed and the delay in filing the MCC is condoned.

6. This is an application for restoration of CEA No. 03/2004, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide Court order dated 16.03.2010.

7. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the restoration application, it is allowed and CEA No. 03/2004 is directed to be restored to its original number.

                 Sd/-                                Sd/-

            Judge                                  Judge
       Prashant Kumar Mishra                Ram Prasanna Sharma




Akhilesh/Gowri