1986 (8) TMI 242 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeals before Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi against a consolidated order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Chronology of Events:
- Four applications were filed for condonation of delay in four appeals against a consolidated order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).
- Initially, one appeal was filed with an application for condonation, but later three supplementary appeals were filed along with respective delay condonation applications.

2. Explanation for Delay:
- The delay in filing the original appeal was 70 days, excluding the day of receipt of the order and the date of appeal receipt in the Registry.
- The applicant provided reasons for the delay, including procedural steps taken such as sending letters for case records and obtaining authorizations.

3. Arguments Presented:
- The Applicant argued that public interest should be considered in condoning the delay, especially when departmental authorities may delay appeals for hidden motives affecting public interest.
- The Respondent cited previous cases where delay explanations were unsatisfactory, contrasting with the Applicant's reliance on public interest grounds.

4. Legal Framework and Precedents:
- The judgment discusses the legal provisions under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the interpretation of "sufficient cause" for delay condonation.
- Various Supreme Court decisions are referenced to emphasize the importance of explaining each day's delay and the discretion of the court in condoning delays.

5. Decision and Rationale:
- The Tribunal observed that the applicant failed to provide any cause for the delay, leading to the dismissal of applications for condonation and subsequently the appeals.
- The judgment highlights the necessity of explaining delays without negligence or lack of bona fides, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice and the absence of special treatment based on the party's identity.

6. Conclusion:
- Ultimately, the judgment underscores the significance of justifying delays comprehensively, especially in cases involving public interest considerations, and upholds the principles of timely legal actions and explanations for delays in appeal filings.