- (1.) Having heard the counsel for both the parties, we are of the opinion that this was a case where the delay in filing the appeal could have been condoned by resort to the principle underlying Section 14. The order of the Collector (Appeals) was rendered on 20/10/1989. Instead of filing the appeal to the tribunal, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High court on 17/11/1989. On 11/04/1990 an interim order was made by the High court directing refund of the amount claimed by the appellant on condition of his furnishing a bank guarantee in the said sum. Accordingly, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, that bank guarantee was furnished and the amount withdrawn by the appellant. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of on January 17, 1994 by the High Court of Madras under a consent order. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy of appeal. Thereafter, the appeal was presented before the tribunal on 20/04/1994. It is true that the delay of about three months after 17/01/1994 till the filing of the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the appeal could have been admitted by the tribunal more particularly when the tribunal possesses the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and direct the tribunal to entertain the said appeal (without dismissing it on the ground of limitation) and dispose it of in accordance with law.
(2.) No costs.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant states that the bank guarantee furnished by them is still kept alive and valid and that it will be kept alive and valid till the disposal of the appeal by the tribunal. His statement is recorded. The bank guarantee shall be kept alive, pending the appeal before the tribunal and shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by the tribunal in that behalf.;