1990 (2) TMI 170 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Late filing of appeal before the Tribunal; Condonation of delay based on bona fide belief and sufficient cause.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal filed by M/s. Tembe Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur, against an order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune. The appeal was presented to the West Regional Bench, Bombay Registry. The issue at hand was the late filing of the appeal and whether the delay could be condoned due to sufficient cause and bona fide belief on the part of the appellant.

The appellant's advocate, Shri N.C. Jain, argued that the delay in filing the appeal was not due to negligence but was a result of a genuine belief that they had 6 months to file the appeal based on a Removal of Difficulties Order. He cited a previous Tribunal judgment where delay was condoned when the appellant was pursuing proceedings before the wrong forum. He pleaded for the condonation of delay based on these grounds.

On the other hand, Shri M.S. Arora, representing the department, left the decision to the discretion of the Bench after considering the submissions made by the appellant's advocate.

After hearing both sides and examining the facts, the Bench noted that the delay in filing the appeal was not disputed. The appellant had filed the appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs within the original time frame under the erstwhile Section 35 of the C.E.S.A., 1944. However, due to the establishment of the Tribunal, the appeal had to be filed with the jurisdictional bench of the Tribunal. The appellant had received a letter from the Board advising them to file the appeal with the Tribunal within 6 months from the date of the order communicated to them.

The Bench found that the appellant had a bona fide belief that they were entitled to the benefit of the Removal of Difficulties Order and had filed the appeal within the extended time frame. Referring to relevant case laws and judgments, including one from the Honorable Supreme Court, the Bench concluded that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was allowed to be taken on record for further proceedings.

In summary, the Tribunal granted the appellant's request for condonation of delay based on their genuine belief and sufficient cause for the late filing of the appeal. The case serves as an example where legal provisions and previous judgments were considered to uphold the principle of fairness and justice in the legal process.