Commissioner Of Central Excise, Cochin vs Mathew Kurian
- SCC(1999) 9 SCC 23
- AIRAIR 1999 SC 3800
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An appeal filed with inordinate delay (478 days) will be dismissed where the explanation for the delay is casual, vague, and inadequately detailed — merely attributing fault to an individual employee without providing substantive particulars of the circumstances causing the delay, the consequences of those circumstances, or the action taken in response, does not constitute sufficient explanation to warrant condonation of delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. There is an inordinate delay of 478 days in filing the appeal. While explaining the delay, it is stated at pages 83-84 of SLP paper book, inter alia, as follows :
Thereafter the paper book and relevant papers were called for from the Commissioner of Central Excise - Cochin on 10-12-1996. Thereafter in spite to fact that the papers were received from the Cochin Office, the dealing did not put up the matter and it was lying in the Section. On 16-10-1997 the Section Officer noticed that on action was taken on this file for filing of Civil appeal as the dealing hand did not send the same to the Central Agency Section for further procession, put up a note proposing disciplinary action against the dealing hand and immediately further action was taken and on 29-10-1997 after linking up all the relevant files, the same was sent to the Central Agency Section which was received in the Central Agency Section on 3-11-1997.
2. The above extract containing full of mistakes speaks for itself. The casual manner in which it was prepared and filed without taking the trouble of perusing the draft compels the Court to think that the appellant has taken the Court for granted.
3. From the above it is seen that in explaining the delay, the appellant was satisfied in just stating that one dealing hand was responsible for the delay. No further details are given about what action was taken against the erring dealing hand and how the departmental action if any taken ended. We have come across that cases are invariably filed with enormous unexplained/casually explained delay. This state of affairs is continuing for quite some years. We wish to express our anguish that in spite of the Court pointing out the haphazard way of filing application for condoning delay, no improvement is forthcoming. Ultimately it is the Revenue that suffers as a result of dismissal of cases on the ground of delay. We hope that at least in further the appeals are filed in time and if there is any delay, it is explained properly.
4. This appeal is dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free