1986 (8) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Interpretation of statutory provision

Delay in filing appeal:
The appeal was received in the Registry on 16-5-1986 concerning an Order-in-Appeal dated 15-10-85. The application for condonation of delay was filed citing reasons such as the need to file 37 separate appeals, resulting in a delay of 84 days. The Collector's order for filing the appeal was given on 20-12-1985, with further delays in drafting the memorandum of appeal and obtaining approval. The respondent argued that the delay of 106 days should not be condoned, emphasizing that the office of the Collector should have had sufficient staff to handle the appeal process promptly. The Tribunal noted a lack of appreciation by the Collector regarding the statutory time limit for filing the appeal and the significance of the provisions under Section 129A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Condonation of delay:
The Tribunal carefully considered the facts presented in the application for condonation of delay and found a lack of understanding on the part of the Collector regarding the provisions empowering him to direct the filing of an appeal. Despite the reasons given for the delay, such as the preparation of other appeals and a shortage of staff, the Tribunal concluded that there was no sufficient justification to condone the delay of 84 days. The Collector's failure to promptly review the Order-in-Appeal and initiate the appeal process in a timely manner was a key factor in the decision to reject the application for condonation of delay.

Interpretation of statutory provision:
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of Section 129A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which requires the Collector of Customs to form an opinion that an order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs is not legal or proper before directing the filing of an appeal. In this case, the Tribunal observed that the Collector's actions did not align with the statutory provision, as there was a significant delay in initiating the appeal process, and the reasons provided for the delay were not deemed sufficient. The Tribunal emphasized the Collector's responsibility to ensure timely compliance with statutory requirements and concluded that the appeal was rejected due to being filed beyond the statutory period of limitation.