The need for sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the adherence to limitation periods, even for Government bodies and agencies.

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, C.J.

1. All these Civil Applications were heard together as the grounds for condonation of delay in filing the various Misc. Civil Applications for review are virtually the same. We, however, take the case of Civil Application No. 162 of 2014 as the lead matter.

2. By these applications, the applicant/Union of India, has prayed for condonation of delay of 417 days in filing the Misc. Civil Applications for review.

3. The following facts are not in dispute:-

3.1. By a common CAV judgment dated 28th September 2012, this Bench had decided 29 Tax appeals including the ones out of which the present applications arise. Those 29 Tax Appeals can be divided into two classes, namely, (i) the appeals wherein the quantum of monetary threshold limit is more than Rs. 25 lakh and (ii) the appeals wherein such limit is below Rs. 25 lakh.

3.2. The applicant proposed to file Special Leave Applications in the Supreme Court of India against the common order passed by this Court in nine Tax Appeals including Tax appeal No. 1116 of 2011 filed by M/s. Adarsh Textile Mills. However, the applicant could not propose to file SLP in the Supreme Court in respect of other group because the quantum of revenue involved therein was below Rs. 25 lakh.

3.3. According to the applicant, over the subject matters involved in these applications, the Central Board of Excise and Customs was requested to permit the applicant to file SLP even in those appeals wherein the quantum of revenue involved was below the prescribed monetary limit fixed in the instructions letter dated 17th October 2011 and that the applicant pursued the said request by representing on various dates including on 6th May 2013, 26th June 2013, 12th July 2013 and 6th August 2013.

3.4. According to the applicant, they inquired from the Commissioner (Legal), Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi as to whether the matter was under the consideration of the Board for filing SLP in the Supreme Court of India in all cases, irrespective of monetary limit or otherwise. The applicants have asserted in the present application for condonation of delay that the said proposal was pending even on the date of the filing of the application for review for its final decision as it appears from the last line of paragraph 3 of the application for condonation of delay.

3.5. In the meanwhile, in a similar case, namely, M/s. Vitrag Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., another Division Bench of this Court by order dated 26th December 2012 passed in Tax Appeal No. 525 of 2012 partly allowed the appeal by relying on our CAV common judgment dated 28th September 2012. In view of quantum of threshold limit of Rs. 25 lakh in filing appeal in the Supreme Court being prescribed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs instructions dated 17th August 2011, the applicant filed Special Leave to Appeal being (Civil) CC No. 13647 of 2013 in the Supreme Court of India. The said petition was placed for hearing before the Supreme Court on 8th August 2013 and the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, after making submissions for a while, made a request that the petitioner might be permitted to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with liberty to seek review of the judgment under challenge. According to the applicant, the Supreme Court of India, while accepting such request, disposed of the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn with liberty in terms of prayer made by the learned Additional Solicitor General. The Supreme Court, however, made it clear that liberty given by the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mandate to the High Court to entertain and allow the review petition and, if any such petition was filed, the High Court should decide the same on its merit.

3.6. The applicants contend that certified copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court in respect of SLP (C) No. CC No. 13647 of 2013 in the case of CCE vs. M/s. Vitrag Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. was received by the office of the applicant on 20th Septembe