Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Unique Laminates (P) Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Unique Laminates (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided May 05, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/696875

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CEAC 02/2005
Subject
Civil;Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil;Excise
Acts & sections
Limitation Act - Sections 5; Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 35H

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Advocate A.K. Bhardwaj, Adv

Respondent

Unique Laminates (P) Ltd.

Advocate Nemo

Legal References

Acts
Limitation Act - Sections 5; Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 35H
Reported In
2008(230)ELT421(Del)

Excerpt

- madan b. lokur, j.1. cm no. 1071/05 is an application under section 5 of the limitation act for condensation of delay in filing an appeal under section 35h of the central excise act, 1944 (the act).2. the appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 15th february, 2000 passed by the customs, excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal (cegat). according to the appellant, the order was received on 24th may, 2000.3. the limitation period for filing an appeal under section 35h of the act is six months. the appeal should have been filed by 24th november, 2000.4. however, our record shows that the appeal was signed by the commissioner of central excise on 21st october, 2004 and actually filed in the registry of this court on 3rd january, 2005. obviously there is an enormous delay of over four years in filing the appeal.5. the appellant has stated that delay was on account of frequent transfer of officers dealing with the matters (not necessarily this matter) and the resultant communication gap between the counsel and department. it is stated that some remedial steps have been taken and one of the causes of delay is 'lack of appreciation of the process involved in review of the legal matters'.6. since we were prima facie dissatisfied with the explanationn, which is hardly an explanationn at all, we asked the learned government counsel to produce the original files. some file was produced dealing with some transfers, but not the relevant file pertaining to this appeal.7. the impugned order is hardly of two pages and it merely follows an earlier decision given by the tribunal in the case of faridabad tolls pvt. limited v. cce delhi 1993 (63) elt 759 (tribunal). why it took the appellant four years to decide to file an appeal is a complete mystery. what has happened to the earlier order is anybody's guess.8. there is absolutely no explanationn worth its name for the delay in filing the appeal. the matter has been treated in such a cavalier manner by the appellant that it shows.....

Full Judgment

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. CM No. 1071/05 is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act).

2. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 15th February, 2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). According to the Appellant, the order was received on 24th May, 2000.

3. The limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 35H of the Act is six months. The appeal should have been filed by 24th November, 2000.

4. However, our record shows that the appeal was signed by the Commissioner of Central Excise on 21st October, 2004 and actually filed in the Registry of this Court on 3rd January, 2005. Obviously there is an enormous delay of over four years in filing the appeal.

5. The Appellant has stated that delay was on account of frequent transfer of officers dealing with the matters (not necessarily this matter) and the resultant communication gap between the counsel and department. It is stated that some remedial steps have been taken and one of the causes of delay is 'lack of appreciation of the process involved in review of the legal matters'.

6. Since we were prima facie dissatisfied with the Explanationn, which is hardly an Explanationn at all, we asked the learned Government counsel to produce the original files. Some file was produced dealing with some transfers, but not the relevant file pertaining to this appeal.

7. The impugned order is hardly of two pages and it merely follows an earlier decision given by the Tribunal in the case of Faridabad Tolls Pvt. Limited v. CCE Delhi 1993 (63) ELT 759 (Tribunal). Why it took the Appellant four years to decide to file an appeal is a complete mystery. What has happened to the earlier order is anybody's guess.

8. There is absolutely no Explanationn worth its name for the delay in filing the appeal. The matter has been treated in such a cavalier manner by the Appellant that it shows that there is absolutely no serious concern in taking up the issue raised in the impugned order.

9. There is no reason to condone the delay of over four years in filing the appeal.

10. Dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the Delhi Legal Services Authority.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial