1988 (12) TMI 116 - SC - Customs

Condonation of delay in presenting revision application - Held that - Sufficient cause for condoning delay in presenting revision application now appeal has not been made out. From the application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit it would appear that the appellants filed refund application due to mistaken advice of C.D. Sharma retired Inspector Central Excise and later they consulted a Counsel. Before mistaken legal advice can be considered ground for condoning the delay in presenting appeal or revision application it should be shown that the parties sought advice of competent counsel and such advice was given exercising reasonable skill and care after proper examination and due care and caution. In the instant case all these aspects are lacking. This apart Shri C.D. Sharma left appellants employment in December 1981 and then the matter was entrusted to Shri D.P. Garg. Shri. D.P. Garg does not appear to have taken any action and is said to have left for a foreign country. The particulars given are extremely vague and general and on that basis sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay of 104 days to our mind is not made out. We therefore reject the application. As a consequence application for admission of additional evidence along with appeal in respect of which the condonation of delay application is made are also dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the revision application, now an appeal, transferred to the Tribunal is barred by limitation.
2. Whether the application for condonation of delay of 104 days in presenting the revision application, now an appeal, should be granted.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding the limitation of the revision application now treated as an appeal. The appellants argued that the appeal is not time-barred, citing the provisional nature of the assessment and the absence of a quantified duty demand. They relied on previous decisions, but the Court rejected their argument, stating that the time for filing an appeal starts from the date of communication of the order. The Court emphasized that the earlier decisions cited were not applicable to the present case, as the appeal was filed before the duty was quantified by the Assistant Collector of Customs.

2. The Court then considered the application for condonation of the 104-day delay in presenting the revision application, now an appeal. The appellants claimed that the delay was due to mistaken advice from a retired Inspector of the Central Excise Department and subsequent consultation with a counsel. However, the Court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate seeking advice from competent counsel or exercising due care in following the advice received. The Court deemed the reasons provided for the delay vague and general, concluding that sufficient cause for condoning the delay was not established. Consequently, the Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the application for admission of additional evidence along with the appeal.

This judgment clarifies the principles governing the limitation period for filing appeals and the requirements for condonation of delay in such cases. It emphasizes the need for parties to demonstrate valid reasons supported by specific details when seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings.