1993 (9) TMI 231 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals due to the time taken to obtain certified copies of impugned orders.
2. Interpretation of Section 131A of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding exclusion of time for obtaining copies.
3. Application of Rule 9 of the C.E.G.A.T. Procedure Rules, 1982 in filing appeals with certified copies.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with two appeals where the petitioners sought condonation of delay in filing their appeals due to the time taken to obtain certified copies of the impugned orders. In Appeal No. C-328/85, the impugned order was received on 15-3-1985, and the appeal was filed on 2-8-1985 after obtaining the certified copy on 6-7-1985. Similarly, in Appeal No. C-343/85, the impugned order was received on 16-3-1985, and the appeal was filed on 8-8-1985 after obtaining the certified copy on 5-7-1985. The petitioners argued that the time taken for obtaining the certified copies should be excluded, bringing the total days within the period of limitation.

The respondent contended that the time-limit should run from the dates the original orders were served, not from the dates the certified copies were obtained. However, it was acknowledged that excluding the time taken for obtaining the certified copies would render both appeals within the time-limit. The central issue was whether the time-limit starts from the receipt of the original order or if there are grounds to condone any delay.

The judgment delves into the provisions of Section 131A of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for the exclusion of time taken for obtaining copies in computing the period of limitation for appeals. Additionally, Rule 9 of the C.E.G.A.T. Procedure Rules, 1982 mandates that appeals must be filed with certified copies of the impugned orders. The petitioners, residing in a remote area, were justified in seeking certified copies from the Adjudicating Authority rather than attesting them through a Gazetted Officer. The court relied on a Supreme Court decision to emphasize that the petitioners had a bona fide impression that the certified copies should be obtained from the authority directly, justifying the delay.

Ultimately, the court allowed both Miscellaneous Applications, admitting the appeals for hearing and posting them accordingly. The judgment highlights the importance of understanding procedural rules and justifying delays in filing appeals to ensure access to justice.