1993 (2) TMI 197 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Lack of sufficient cause

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, challenging an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The appeal was filed with a delay of 41 days, and an application for condonation of delay was submitted simultaneously. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the need for detailed scrutiny at the Collector's level to appreciate the technical aspects of the case. The appellant relied on Supreme Court decisions to support the plea for condonation of delay.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the application for condonation of delay lacked sufficient justification. The only ground provided was the need for detailed scrutiny at the Collector's level. The Tribunal examined the facts and circumstances, noting that the amount involved was Rs. 473.95 with a penalty of Rs. 100. Citing previous Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of proving sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, stating that the appellant was not prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal.

The Tribunal referred to various legal precedents, including the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Limited, to highlight the necessity of demonstrating sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Tribunal emphasized that even after showing sufficient cause, condonation of delay is not a matter of right but subject to the court's discretion. Diligence and bona fides of the party play a crucial role in such decisions. The Tribunal concluded that since the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without delving into its merits.

In the final analysis, the Tribunal also considered the case of Bhawan v. Jagdish and reiterated the principles laid down in previous Supreme Court decisions regarding the condonation of delay. By following established legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal held that the appellant's delay in filing the appeal was not justified by sufficient cause. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without further examination of its merits.