- (1.) This petition has been filed seeking a reference of the question of law arising out of the order of the Custom, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), New Delhi now known as the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
(2.) There is delay of 1273 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 6-7-2000, a reference petition was filed in the High Court of Delhi on 18-1-2001. On 2-9-2003, counsel informed the department that petition was under objection in the Registry of the Delhi High Court. On 7-1-2004 counsel informed the department that the petition was required to be filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Thereafter, the petition was filed in this Court on 8/12-7-2004.
(3.) In view of 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 1273 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 Civil Misc. Nos. 24640-41 of 2004 and CEC No. 39 of 2004 (O&M), Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate V/s. M/s. Jamna Auto Industries Ltd ., this Court had dismissed the application for condonation of delay.;