1987 (9) TMI 195 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in presenting appeal to the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, involves the issue of condoning delay in presenting an appeal to the Tribunal by the appellant, the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The impugned order was communicated to the appellant on 25-3-1986, and the appeal should have been filed by 24-6-1986. However, the Memo of appeal was received in the Tribunal on 30-3-1987, making it barred by limitation by 9 months and 6 days. The application for condonation of delay was supported by an affidavit explaining the delay due to the necessity of a meticulous study of the issue, physical verification, and potential loss of revenue. The appellant argued that the delay was not wilful or mala fide and should be condoned.

At the hearing, the appellant reiterated the grounds for condonation of delay and relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court. However, the respondent opposed, stating that the delay was not properly explained and unnecessary enquiries were made. The Tribunal considered the submissions and referred to the Supreme Court's observations on the elastic nature of "sufficient cause" under the law of limitation. They emphasized the importance of balancing substantial justice and technical considerations when deciding on condonation of delay.

The Tribunal also discussed previous Supreme Court decisions on Section 5 of the Limitation Act, highlighting the need to show sufficient cause for delay. While the appellant argued that the latest Supreme Court decision should be preferred, the Tribunal held that all decisions are equally binding. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to justify the delay of 9 months and dismissed the application for condonation of delay, resulting in the appeal being dismissed as barred by limitation.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the legal principles governing the condonation of delay in filing appeals, emphasizing the need to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal carefully analyzed the arguments presented by both parties and applied the relevant legal precedents to reach a decision on whether the delay should be condoned.