1990 (1) TMI 188 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal, Condonation of delay, Misplacement of papers, Non-action by Chief General Manager, Sufficient cause for delay.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal filed by M/s. Kanoria Wisconsin Centrifugal Ltd. against an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur. The appeal was presented with a delay of 58 days, beyond the prescribed period of three months from the date of communication of the order. The appellant sought condonation of delay, citing misplacement of papers and non-action by the Chief General Manager as reasons for the delay. The appellant claimed to be a sick unit registered with the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, facing financial difficulties and potential closure, which would impact the employees. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing a liberal view towards condonation of delay. The respondent opposed the condonation, arguing that the appellant failed to take proper care in filing the appeal and referring to precedents where misplacement of papers was not considered a sufficient cause for delay.

The Tribunal considered the arguments of both parties and examined the facts of the case. It noted the appellant's claim of misplacement of papers and non-action by the Chief General Manager, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant was a sick unit but found no evidence of closure during the relevant period. It emphasized the importance of explaining each day's delay after the limitation period expires, as per legal precedent. The Tribunal analyzed a detailed date-wise explanation provided by the appellant for the delay, highlighting the negligence from August 14 to September 21. Referring to relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that misplacement of papers was not a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It held that the appellant was not prevented by sufficient cause for the late submission of the appeal, leading to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay.

As a result of rejecting the condonation of delay, the Tribunal dismissed the stay application and the appeal itself, as they were hit by limitation. The Tribunal clarified that it would not delve into the merits of the case due to the dismissal on the grounds of delay. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely filing appeals and the need for parties to diligently adhere to procedural requirements to avoid adverse consequences.