- (1.) This petition has been filed under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking a reference of the question of law arising out of the final order dated 18-1-2000, passed by the Custom, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CEGAT), now known as the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
(2.) There is delay of 1494 days in filing of the Reference Petition. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that against the order of the Tribunal dated 18-1-2000, a reference petition was filed in the High Court of Delhi on 4-1-2001. On 19-1-2004, counsel informed the department that the petition was required to be filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Original paper book pertaining to said reference petition was returned by the counsel on 16-4-2004. Thereafter, the petition was filed in this Court on 8/12-7-2004.
(3.) In view of the above, delay is sought to be condoned on the ground of pursuing other remedy under a bona fide belief. It is not shown how the period of delay was spent in pursuing other remedy under bona fide belief when the case was never listed before the High Court of Delhi. No proceedings of the case in Delhi High Court have been placed on record. Even taking a liberal view. inordinate delay of 1494 days in filing the petition in this Court cannot be held to be for reasons beyond the control of the applicant for any sufficient cause. The matter appears to have been pursued in reckless and negligent manner. It is appropriate to mention here that under similar circumstances, in the cases of Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate vM/s. Jamna Auto Industries Ltd. [Civil Misc. Nos. 24640-41 of 2004 and CEC No. 39 of 2004 (O&M)], and Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi- III Commissionerate, Gurgaon V/s. M/s Innovative Tech. Pack Limited (Civil Misc. No. 13760-CII of 2004 and CEC 23 of 2004, decided on 11-5-2007), this Court had dismissed the application for condonation of delay.;