1985 (12) TMI 154 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in presenting the appeal, Condonation of delay, Sufficiency of cause for delay, Legal principles governing condonation of delay.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to an application for Condonation of Delay in presenting an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The appellants, M/s. Mahabir Metal Converters, filed an appeal against Order-in-Original No. V-Adj. (27) 15-17/81/1269 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-11 on 28-8-1984. The appeal, received in the Registry on 12-2-1985, was accompanied by an application for Stay and Condonation of Delay. The appellants cited unavoidable circumstances for the delay, including a Writ Petition filed on 13-12-1984 and subsequent legal consultations causing the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to establish sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The legal framework under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, provides a three-month period for filing appeals, extendable upon showing sufficient cause. The delay in the present case was approximately one month and fourteen days. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of proving sufficient cause for delay, highlighting that events or circumstances arising after the expiry of the limitation period cannot constitute sufficient cause.

The judgment discussed various legal principles governing the condonation of delay. It emphasized that ignorance of the law is not a ground for condonation, and a mistake by a lawyer can be a valid reason only if honest. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing sufficient cause for the entire period of delay and noted that the Court or authority has no obligation to extend time as a matter of indulgence.

The Tribunal rejected the appellants' contentions for condonation of delay. It found that the delay was not due to wrong advice or mistake, as confirmed by the appellants' counsel. The Tribunal dismissed the argument that a High Court observation directed the appellants to file the appeal, as the observation did not constitute a direction. Additionally, the Tribunal scrutinized the reasons provided in the affidavit by the appellants' ex-partner, emphasizing the lack of medical evidence supporting alleged health issues and the absence of detailed explanations for the delay.

Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, leading to the rejection of the Condonation of Delay application and the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. The judgment underscored the necessity of adhering to legal timelines and establishing genuine reasons for seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings.