1986 (12) TMI 164 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Lack of sufficient cause for delay

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise. The appellants sought condonation of delay in presenting the appeal, stating that the delay was due to an employee resigning and taking away the original file. The impugned order was received on 10-5-1986, but the appeal was filed on 15-10-1986, beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants claimed that the delay was genuine and should be condoned due to the employee's behavior. However, the respondent argued that the application was vague and lacked specific details regarding when the appeal papers were handed over to the counsel. The Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to provide a clear timeline of events and did not explain each day's delay, as required by law.

The Tribunal emphasized that under Section 35-B, the appeal should have been filed by 10-8-1986, but it was received on 15-10-1986, resulting in a delay of over two months. The appellants' submissions were deemed insufficient as they did not specify crucial details such as when the papers were handed over to the counsel or when the employee resigned. The subsequent affidavit filed by the director of the appellant company was also found to be vague and lacking in essential information. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of diligence in explaining every day's delay, citing relevant case law that requires litigants to prove their diligence in pursuing their rights.

The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that the purchase of a bank draft for fees on 24-6-1986 demonstrated their intent to file the appeal, as it did not justify the delay that occurred afterward. The assertion of employee mischief causing the delay was considered unsubstantiated due to the lack of supporting details. The Tribunal emphasized that condonation of delay is not a right and should not deprive the opposing party of their accrued rights. Ultimately, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred, leading to the dismissal of the stay application as well.