Madras High Court
G.Mohanakrishnan vs The Chairman on 18 February, 2025
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A.No.2803 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.2803 of 2021
G.Mohanakrishnan .. Appellant
vs
1 The Chairman
Central Board of Excise and Customs
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2 The Member
Central Board of Excise and Customs
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
3 The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise
No.26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34.
4 The Director General of Central Excise
Intelligence, West Block-VII
Wing-VI, First Floor, Section I,
R.K.Puram, New Delhi -110066.
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2803 of 2021
5 The Commissioner of Central Excise
Chennai-IV, Commissionerate
MHU Complex, 682, Anna Salai
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
6 The Additional Director General
Directorate General of Central Excise
Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit,
C-3, C Wing, 2nd floor, Rajaji Bhavan
Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090.
7 The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise
Maduravoyal Division, Chennai-IV Commissionerate
C48, TNHB Complex, 2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar
Chennai – 600 040. .. Respondents
Prayer : Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18538 of 2015, dated
23.8.2021.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Satish Sundar
For Respondents : Mr.Rajendran Raghavan
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to
direct respondents to return the seized records, materials and an amount of
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.27,05,000/- collected as duty deposit along with interest at an
appropriate rate. The petition was disposed of directing appellant to file an
application in accordance with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
2. It is this order which is impugned in this appeal and counsel
submitted that if appellant, namely, petitioner, files an application claiming
refund under Section 11B of the Act, respondents would raise the issue of
limitation.
3. We find from the documents annexed that way back on
14.10.2014 itself a refund application has been made by appellant, albeit
not in the prescribed format. Therefore, it cannot be said that appellant
was not diligent in pursuing the appellate remedy. We are of the view that
cause for substantial justice deserves to be preferred, when pitted against
technical considerations. The aforesaid view is fortified by a decision of the
Apex Court in Collector (LA) v. Katiji1 and the relevant observations are
reproduced hereunder:
1 (1987) 2 SCC 107
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by
enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order
to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by
disposing of matters on ”merits”. The expression “sufficient
cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to
enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner
which subserves the ends of justice — that being the life-
purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is
common knowledge that this Court has been making a
justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court.
But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all
the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is
adopted on principle as it is realized that:
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by
lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a
meritorious matter being thrown out at the very
threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As
against this when delay is condoned the highest that
can happen is that a cause would be decided on
merits after hearing the parties.
3. “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not
mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why
not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The
doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense
pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical
considerations are pitted against each other, cause
of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for
the other side cannot claim to have vested right in
injustice being done because of a non-deliberate
delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned
deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or
on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to
benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious
risk.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not
on account of its power to legalize injustice on
technical grounds but because it is capable of
removing injustice and is expected to do so.”
[emphasis supplied]
4. Therefore, without opining on the merits of the refund application,
we direct seventh respondent to consider the refund application purely on
merits, without raising the issue of limitation, and pass appropriate orders
within six weeks of receiving the application.
5. Counsel for appellant states the application will now have to be
made online and the portal has to be opened. Shri Raghavan states within
three days of the order being uploaded, the portal will be opened and a link
sent to appellant's advocate and appellant. Shri Raghavan further states
that even if appellant files a physical application to seventh respondent,
namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Maduravoyal
Division, Chennai-IV Commissionerate, the application will be considered
and processed in accordance with law. Statements are accepted as
undertaking to this court.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. If seventh respondent is not inclined to consider the application for
refund favourably, in entirety or in part, then a personal hearing shall be
given to appellant, notice whereof shall be communicated at least five
working days in advance. If the officer concerned is going to rely on any
judicial pronouncements of the High Court or Tribunal in support of the
stand of the revenue, a list thereof shall be made available along with notice
for personal hearing, so that appellant will be able to deal with the same or
distinguish the same.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as
to costs.
We clarify that we have not made any observation on the merits of
the matter.
(K.R.SHRIRAM, C.J.) (MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.)
18.02.2025
Index : Yes/No
NC : Yes/No
sasi
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1 The Chairman
Central Board of Excise and Customs
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2 The Member
Central Board of Excise and Customs
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
3 The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise
No.26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34.
4 The Director General of Central Excise
Intelligence, West Block-VII
Wing-VI, First Floor, Section I,
R.K.Puram, New Delhi -110066.
5 The Commissioner of Central Excise
Chennai-IV, Commissionerate
MHU Complex, 682, Anna Salai
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
6 The Additional Director General
Directorate General of Central Excise
Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit,
C-3, C Wing, 2nd floor, Rajaji Bhavan
Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090.
7 The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise
Maduravoyal Division, Chennai-IV Commissionerate
C48, TNHB Complex, 2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar
Chennai – 600 040.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.
(sasi)
18.02.2025
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
