Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Apl Metals Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 September, 2018
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
9 11.09. W.P. No.17478(W) of 2018
ns 2018
M/s. APL Metals Ltd.
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Sumit Kr. Chakraborty,
Mr. Piyal Gupta,
Mr. Debaditya Banerjee,
Mrs. Esha Banerjee ... for the petitioner.
Ms. Rajashree Venket Kundalia ... for Union of India.
Mr. Somnath Ganguly,
Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee... for respondent nos.2 & 3.
An order dated May 31, 2018 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CESTAT') is under challenge in the present writ petition.
By the impugned order, CESTAT has refused to condone 171 days delay on the ground that, although the Advocate of the petitioner was unwell for the relevant period, the petitioner could have engaged some other Advocate for the purpose of preferring the appeal.
Learned Advocate for the respondents submits that, the petitioner is a habitual defaulter in moving any application. He draws the attention of the Court to the findings returned in the impugned order. He submits that, the order in original has attained finality inasmuch 2 as, the petitioner preferred an appeal, beyond the condonable period of limitation, to the learned Commissioner of Appeals. Thereafter, the appeal preferred before the CESTAT was also beyond the period of limitation.
An authority empowered to condone the delay in filing a proceedings before it, needs to consider an application for condonation as leniently as possible. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner seeks to condone the delay on the ground of the consultant being ill and therefore, the petitioner not being able to move the CESTAT within the time prescribed. There are sufficient explanations for the delay. CESTAT could have accepted such grounds to condone the delay. It has not done so for the reason that, the petitioner could have utilised the services of another Advocate to prefer the appeal. It is for the litigant to make a choice of its Advocate. The causes shown being sufficient, the delay in preferring the appeal before CESTAT is condoned. CESTAT is requested to consider and decide the appeal, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
The impugned order dated May 31, 2018 is set aside.
3
WP No.17478(W) of 2018 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
( Debangsu Basak, J. )