M/S Shree Siddhi Vinayak Induction PVT. LTD vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise And Service Tax And CGST
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shree Siddhi Vinayak Induction Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, filed a restoration application (D.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 19/2021) along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent, Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax and CGST, Jaipur, opposed the application, stating that the restoration application had been dismissed previously and this was a recurring issue. The High Court considered the reasons provided in the application and, in the interest of justice, condoned the delay in filing the restoration application. Consequently, D.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 394/2019 was restored to its original number. Both applications were disposed of. Subsequently, D.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 394/2019 was allowed, restoring D.B. Central Excise Appeal No. 193/2018 to its original number. The appeal was then listed for admission.
Held
The Court allowed the restoration application (D.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 19/2021) and condoned the delay in filing it. The Court reasoned that in the interest of justice, it was appropriate to restore the application. The primary finding was that the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay were sufficient to warrant condonation. The Court also allowed D.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 394/2019, restoring D.B. Central Excise Appeal No. 193/2018 to its original number. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts have the discretion to condone delays in filing restoration applications when sufficient cause is shown, particularly in the interest of justice, to allow parties to pursue their substantive appeals. The operative direction was to restore the appeal to its original number and list it for admission. No issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay in filing the restoration application (D.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 19/2021) should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, considering the reasons provided by the petitioner and the respondent's opposition. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued for condonation of delay based on the reasons stated in the application, seeking restoration of the appeal in the interest of justice. Respondent: Opposed the restoration application, highlighting that it was a recurring issue and that the restoration application had been dismissed previously, suggesting a lack of diligence on the part of the appellant.
Sections Cited
Section 5
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 19/01/2022 D.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 19/2021 and D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.274/2021:- Counsel for the appellant has filed restoration application alongwith application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Counsel for the revenue has opposed the same and submitted that it is not for the first time that the restoration application has been dismissed, but it is a recurring action on the part of the appellant.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, and in interest of justice delay in filing the restoration application is condon
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.