1986 (1) TMI 220 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was filed by M/s. Mangalam Dyes and Chemicals against an order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Appeals, Central Excise, Madras. The appellant also filed an application for condonation of delay, stating that the delay was due to the loss of the order copy by an employee. The appellant argued that the limitation period for filing the appeal should be computed from the date of receiving the certified copy, which was on 5-7-1985. The appellant contended that the loss of papers by the employee constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. The appellant supported their argument with affidavits from relevant individuals, including the Managing Partner's husband (Dr. M.I. Itty). The appellant's consultant emphasized the need for the Tribunal to exercise discretion and condone the delay.

In opposition, the Departmental Representative argued against the condonation of delay, stating that a certified copy cannot be prepared from another certified copy. The Departmental Representative referenced judgments from the Tribunal to support the argument that there was negligence on the part of the appellant and no sufficient cause was established for the delay. The Departmental Representative highlighted the importance of adhering to the limitation period for filing appeals.

After hearing both parties and considering the facts, the Tribunal concluded that it was not a suitable case for condonation of delay. The Tribunal emphasized the principle that after the limitation period expires, the respondent acquires substantial rights, and the appellant must explain each day's delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal cited legal precedents to support the decision, emphasizing that the cause for delay, which could have been avoided with due care, cannot be considered a sufficient cause. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of strictly interpreting the provisions of the Limitation Act and the discretion of the Court in condoning delays. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision centered on the lack of sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to limitation periods and the legal rights acquired by the respondent after the expiry of such periods. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal principles and precedents that highlighted the need for parties to diligently adhere to procedural timelines in legal matters.