1986 (5) TMI 135 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Examination of whether sufficient cause existed for the delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal
The primary issue in this case is the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant, the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, New Delhi. The appeal was filed on 24-7-1985, which was 12 days beyond the prescribed period of three months from the date of communication of the order (12-4-1985). The appellant presented reasons for the delay and sought the Tribunal's leniency in condoning it.

The appellant argued that delays in government departments are inevitable due to the need for thorough internal reviews and public interest considerations. The appellant cited judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bahadur Singh and Others and C.C. Bombay v. Godrej Soap Ltd., which suggested that delays by governmental authorities could be condoned if they were explainable and did not result from negligence.

2. Examination of Whether Sufficient Cause Existed for the Delay
The Tribunal examined the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay. The reasons included the movement of files through various departments and the time taken for obtaining necessary approvals. The appellant provided a detailed date-wise explanation showing the steps taken from the receipt of the order on 12-4-1985 to the filing of the appeal on 24-7-1985.

The respondent's counsel argued against the condonation, citing judgments such as State v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup and Ram Lal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., which emphasized that the law of limitation applies equally to government and private individuals. The respondent contended that the appellant failed to explain each day's delay adequately and that the reasons provided did not constitute "sufficient cause."

The Tribunal noted that the discretion to condone delay is contingent upon the appellant demonstrating sufficient cause. The Tribunal referred to the statutory provisions under sub-section (3) and sub-section (5) of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which prescribe the limitation period and empower the Tribunal to condone delays if justified.

The Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the appellant, primarily the internal file movement and procedural delays, did not sufficiently justify the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the handling of the matter by the Department appeared routine and lacked a sense of urgency.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay was rejected, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. The Tribunal did not proceed to examine the merits of the case due to the dismissal on the ground of limitation.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the necessity for appellants, including government authorities, to provide compelling reasons for any delay in filing appeals.