Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 762 2005 SLD 762 2005 PTD 150
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
Central Excise Appeal No.K-46 of 2002, decision dated: 4-05-2004
MS. YASMIN ABBASEY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III) AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-III)
Barkat Ali Bukhari, Addl. Coll./D.R. for Appellant. Siraj-ul-Haq, A.R. for
Respondent

Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law: Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)

Section: 35

(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].....S 35-B---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.149---Appeal--­Limitation---Appeal against the order of Adjudicating Officer was filed by appellant Department after a lapse of about 5 months without giving explanation for said delay---Appellant. Department had totally ignored said legal aspect of the case as neither any reason of such delay had been explained in the memo. of appeal nor any application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 had been filed along with it---During course of hearing of appeal, on raising point of delay by respondent Assessee appellant Department fled application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 alleging that delay occurred due to procedural matters relating to sanctioning and arranging funds for deposition appeal's fee---Said ground taken by a Government functionary after a lapse of about 2 years was nothing, but a lame excuse as ignorance of law had always been considered as no excuse---Appellant be it a Government or ordinary citizen had always been treated equally---Even if it was taken as correct that due to office correspondence, appellant Department was not able to arrange fee in time, then in such, circumstances a special procedure had been provided in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which was applicable in the case and could be followed for advancement of justice---By virtue of S.149, C.P.C. opportunity of late payment had been provided to party agitating before legal forum but said procedure was not adopted by the appellant Department in the present case---Appeal being hopelessly time-barred, was dismissed. (b) Administration of justice--- ----No hard and fast rule was required for administration of justice, but applicability of any specific law was dependant on the fact of particular case. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S.5---Delay---Condonation---In case of delay each and every date had to be explained. 2002 PTD 549 ref. ORDER MS. YASMIN ABBASEY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).---Before going into the merits of case the main aspect of time-barred appeal needs consideration. 2. Heard parties representatives and perused the record. 3. The perusal of record shows that in against to the demand of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492