1987 (2) TMI 241 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Filing of a single appeal for 98 cases.
2. Request for condonation of delay in filing appeals.
3. Dispensation with the filing of documents for 97 appeals.
4. Examination of sufficient cause for delay.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Filing of a Single Appeal for 98 Cases:
The appellants, Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., filed a single appeal for 98 cases, despite paying the appeal fee for all 98 cases. The Bench pointed out that separate memos of appeals on Form CA-3 were required for each case as per Rule 11 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1982. The appellants complied by filing 97 additional appeals on December 26, 1986, along with a request to dispense with the filing of documents for these appeals.

2. Request for Condonation of Delay:
The appellants sought condonation of a 40-day delay for the original appeal and a 118-day delay for the additional 97 appeals. The delay was attributed to the procedural movement of files, the need for permission from the Ministry of Communications, and administrative burdens due to the transfer of the Chief Regional Manager. The affidavit by Shri K.S. Krishnamurthy, Additional Regional Manager, supported these claims, citing various administrative and procedural hurdles.

3. Dispensation with the Filing of Documents for 97 Appeals:
The Bench allowed the dispensation with the filing of documents for the 97 appeals in terms of Rule 11 read with Rule 9 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, as there was no objection from the respondent's representative.

4. Examination of Sufficient Cause for Delay:
The appellants argued that there was no negligence or inaction on their part, citing heavy administrative workload and procedural delays in obtaining necessary permissions. They referred to judgments supporting a liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice, including the Supreme Court's decision in Ramlal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. and the Bombay High Court's decision in State Bank of India v. Javed Textiles and others.

The respondent's representative, Shri J. Gopinath, countered that seeking permission from the Ministry was not a sufficient cause and referred to various judgments emphasizing that negligence or inaction does not justify condonation of delay. He argued that the delay was due to avoidable administrative processes and not compelling circumstances.

Judgment:
The Tribunal rejected the applications for condonation of delay, concluding that the appellants were not prevented by sufficient cause. The delay was attributed to inattention and negligence rather than unavoidable circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized that the expiration of the limitation period grants a substantial right to the respondent, which should not be lightly disturbed. The applications for condonation of delay were thus denied, and the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.