1986 (2) TMI 182 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

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

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts and Background:
The case involved an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. The delay in filing the appeal was nearly 36 days beyond the limitation period, with the appeal actually being filed on 28-3-1985.

2. Contentions and Arguments:
The Collector cited reasons for the delay, mentioning that the staff was engaged in State Assembly Election duties and pre-budget work, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. However, there was no explanation offered for the period between 16-3-1985 and 28-3-1985 when the appeal was filed.

3. Legal Precedents and Principles:
The Collector relied on legal precedents, including a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that public interest should be considered in condoning the delay. However, the Tribunal noted that the explanations provided did not cover the entire delay period as required by law.

4. Legal Provisions and Interpretation:
The Tribunal highlighted the legal provision under Section 35B(5) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, stating that delay can be condoned only if sufficient cause is shown for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. The term "sufficient cause" was interpreted to mean that each day's delay must be explained, and negligence or inaction cannot be attributed to the party seeking condonation.

5. Judicial Decisions and Application:
The Tribunal referred to various judicial decisions where the principles governing condonation of delay were reiterated. It was emphasized that negligence or inaction should not be imputed to the party seeking condonation, and the delay should not be due to reasons indicating negligence on the party's part.

6. Decision and Conclusion:
After considering the facts, arguments, legal principles, and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the appeal was not justifiable. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and since the appeal was filed after the limitation period without sufficient cause, the appeal itself was also dismissed.

In summary, the Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not adequately explained, and the reasons provided did not cover the entire delay period as required by law. The legal precedents and principles emphasized the importance of showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay, which was not met in this case, leading to the dismissal of both the application and the appeal.