CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2023) 03 OHC CK 0204

M/s. Rungta Sons Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Central Excise And Customs, Rourkela

Orissa High Court · Decided on 27 March 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Talapatra, J · Savitri Ratho, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
OTAPL No.02 Of 2020
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 367 words

I.A. No.08 of 2020

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard Mr. K. Kurmy, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and also Mr. R. Chimanka, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party.

3.

This is an application for condonation of delay of 1227 days in preferring the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated 29.02.2016 read with Corrigendum dated 08.03.2016 delivered in the appeal bearing No.FO/75216-75220/2016.

4.

It appears from the averments made in this application that the applicant had wrongly filed one writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the said impugned order, despite there being an appellate provision. This court by the order dated 11.12.2019 had disposed of the writ petition having observed as follows:

“Since the writ petition is not maintainable in this matter, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition and file an appeal against the impugned order of the Tribunal.

Considering prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the permission for withdrawal of the writ petition is allowed with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned order.

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case of the petitioner. However, the period of lapsed by the petitioner by filing the writ petition shall be into consideration while condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.”

5.

Mr. Kurmy, learned counsel has submitted that, apart from the above delay caused for approaching a wrong forum [Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963] there is no delay in filing the appeal.

6.

Mr. Chimanka, learned Senior Standing Counsel has not opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. In our considered view, the above delay is liable to be condoned. It is condoned accordingly.

7.

In the result, this application stands allowed and disposed of.

OTAPL No.02 of 2020

1.

In view of the order passed today in I.A. No.08 of 2020, this appeal will be taken up for consideration.

2.

Let the matter be listed on 18th April, 2023.

……………………………