1988 (10) TMI 105 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Administrative reasons for delay, Precedents on condonation of delay, Justification for adjournment request

Analysis:
1. The Collector of Central Excise filed an appeal challenging an order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The appeal mentioned a date of communication as 17th Sept., 1987, but was filed on 13-1-1988, resulting in a delay of 29 days. The S.D.R. requested an adjournment to substantiate grounds for condonation of delay, which was granted despite opposition. The opposing party cited a judgment to argue against the adjournment. The adjournment request was further opposed during the subsequent hearing.

2. The appellant pleaded for condonation of delay, citing sufficient cause for the late filing of the appeal. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the appellant argued that every day's delay need not be explained in detail, and requested condonation of the delay based on this argument.

3. The opposing party contested the condonation of delay, highlighting the delay period and citing various judgments, including a Supreme Court case and a Tribunal decision. The opposing party argued that the appellant failed to prove sufficient cause for the delay, emphasizing the need for a rational and pragmatic application of the doctrine regarding delay condonation.

4. The Tribunal examined the facts and circumstances of the case, including the reasons for delay attributed to administrative issues. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not provide detailed administrative reasons or a day-to-day chart for the delay. Referring to a recent Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal held that inter-departmental correspondence and processing were not sufficient causes for delay. Considering the negligence in filing the appeal and lack of detailed justification, the Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay.

5. As the condonation of delay was rejected, the appeal was dismissed due to being hit by limitation. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case due to the dismissal based on the delay issue.