1990 (7) TMI 224 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi.

Analysis:
The appellants filed two applications seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. In the first application (COD No. 151/90-C), the delay was about four months, with the appellants claiming they were not given an opportunity for personal hearing by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) despite requesting it. They also alleged not receiving notice of personal hearing. The appellants waited for a response from the Collector before filing the appeal, stating the delay was not their fault. However, the Tribunal found the reasons insufficient, emphasizing the lack of effort on the appellants' part to pursue reopening of the case as requested in their letters. The delay was not adequately explained, leading to the dismissal of the application and the appeal.

In the second application (COD No. 152/90 in Appeal No. 2206/90), the delay was also about four months. The appellants cited similar reasons as in the first application, adding that they had requested an adjournment for a personal hearing, which was not granted. They sent a letter to the Collector seeking a reopening of the case after the impugned order. The Tribunal noted the appellants' lack of diligence in pursuing the case and filing the appeal within the statutory period. The absence of efforts to follow up on their requests for reopening the case led to the dismissal of the application and the appeal.

The appellants' representative argued for condonation of delay based on their belief that the Collector would consider reopening the case. However, the Departmental Representative opposed, highlighting the appellants' lack of action and the insufficiency of their reasons for the delay. The Tribunal found the appellants' explanations lacking and emphasized the importance of timely filing appeals within the prescribed period. The reliance on a legal citation was deemed irrelevant to the issue of delay, resulting in the dismissal of both applications and appeals.

A separate order by the President of the Tribunal disagreed with the majority's decision, emphasizing the appellants' contentions regarding not receiving notices of hearings and their efforts to address the issue with the Collector. Referencing a judgment by the Allahabad High Court, the President suggested that the Collector should have considered the appellants' applications for reopening the case in the interest of justice. The President proposed condoning the delay in filing the appeals based on the principles of statutory law and previous legal precedents.

Despite the dissenting opinion, the majority order prevailed, leading to the dismissal of the applications for condonation of delay and consequently, the dismissal of the appeals as well. The Tribunal found the appellants' reasons insufficient to justify the delay in filing the appeals, emphasizing the importance of diligence and timely action in legal proceedings.