1987 (10) TMI 161 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in presenting appeal to the Tribunal based on legal advice.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for condonation of delay in presenting an appeal to the Tribunal. The order under consideration was issued by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and communicated to the appellant on 5-11-1982. The appellant filed the Memo. of Appeal with the Tribunal on 1-4-1983, which was received on 11-4-1983. The appellant's Managing Director sought legal advice in February 1983, believing that the matter would be governed by the law in force when the appeal was heard in April 1982. The appellant's counsel, based on various legal decisions, opined that the appellant could benefit from a six-month limitation period due to the date of the order being before the constitution of the Tribunal. However, the order was actually passed on 18-10-1982, after the Tribunal's constitution. The appellant's counsel justified the delay in presenting the appeal as being based on legal advice, which was given after thorough examination of relevant authorities.

The appellant's counsel referenced legal precedents such as Nagendra Nath Dey v. Suresh Chandra Dey and Ramachandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat to support the argument that the delay was due to a genuine belief in the legal position at the time. The counsel also mentioned a Tribunal decision in Amin Chand Payarelal v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, which clarified the intention of the law to remove old rights. The appellant's counsel contended that even if the legal advice was mistaken, it constituted sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 2 months and 6 days in presenting the appeal. The Revenue did not contest the understanding of the limitation and legal position put forth by the appellant's counsel, indicating that the issue was primarily related to the delay and legal advice provided.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions of both parties, concluded that the delay in presenting the appeal was indeed due to legal advice. While acknowledging that a counsel's mistake may not always warrant condonation of delay, the Tribunal found that in this case, the legal advice was given after careful examination of relevant authorities and in good faith. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the legal advice provided a sufficient ground to justify condoning the delay in presenting the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the condonation of delay and scheduled the hearing of the appeal for a specific date, directing the parties to file any necessary papers within a week from the judgment date.