Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition filed under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated August 9, 2010 (annexure P -3) passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated September 19, 2012 (annexure P -4) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short "the Tribunal") whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant writ petition as narrated therein may be noticed. The petitioner took Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,99,398 on the cost of the mobile towers and Rs. 4,48,566 of service tax paid on civil construction work and soil testing during the period April, 2006 to March, 2008. The Joint Commissioner (P & V) issued a notice dated October 14, 2008 (annexure P -1) to the petitioner to show cause as to why the Cenvat credit granted to it be not disallowed. The petitioner submitted the reply dated January 2, 2009 (annexure P -2) to the said notice pleading that there was no misutilisation of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 7,05,761. The adjudicating authority disallowed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 7,05,761 and imposed equal penalty. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 who vide order dated August 9, 2010 (annexure P -3) while disposing of the appeal reduced the penalty from Rs. 2,57,195 to Rs. 1,99,398 imposed under rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It further held the adjudicating authority to allow Cenvat credit to the extent availed of on construction work of office only and disallow the credit availed of on civil construction work of residential premises. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated September 19, 2012 (annexure P -4) dismissed the application as well as the appeal holding that the application was blank about the days of delay and also was not properly verified. Hence, the present writ petition.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The solitary question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay of about one and a half year in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
(3.) EXAMINING the legal position relating to condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short, the "1963 Act") it may be observed that the hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation : [2010] 5 SCC 459 laying down the broad principles for adjudicating the issue of condonation of delay, in paragraphs 14 and 15 observed as under: "14. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The Legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the Legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed of for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression 'sufficient cause' employed in section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - -Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji : [1987] 66 STC 228 (SC) : [1987] 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy : [1998] 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil : [2002] 253 ITR 798 (SC) : [2002] 125 STC 375 (SC) : [2001] 9 SCC 106.";