1993 (7) TMI 201 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
The applicants sought to condone a delay of 138 days in filing an appeal, attributing the delay to mistakenly filing a revision petition before the Government of India instead of directly to the Appellate Tribunal. They argued that the delay was not deliberate but due to ignorance and lack of knowledge about the correct forum for filing the appeal. They cited previous tribunal decisions where delays were condoned under similar circumstances. The applicants emphasized that they were diligent in preparing the appeal once the mistake was realized, and there was no negligence on their part. They requested a liberal approach in condoning the delay, citing various legal precedents supporting their argument. The applicants contended that the delay was primarily due to the time spent on the revision petition before the Government of India, and the subsequent delay was a result of preparing the appeal documents, not negligence. They highlighted that the delay was not intentional but a result of misunderstanding the correct appellate authority.

On the other hand, the Respondent opposed the application for condonation of delay, arguing that the applicants had taken the matter casually and failed to provide a proper explanation for the delay. The Respondent contended that every day's delay should be justified, and filing an appeal in a casual manner cannot be considered sufficient cause for condonation. The Respondent referenced various legal decisions to support their argument that delays should be adequately explained, and negligence cannot be excused. The Respondent pointed out that the applicants were aware of the correct appellate forum but chose to file a revision petition first, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. They highlighted that the delay in preparing the appeal documents without a valid reason cannot be considered sufficient cause to condone the delay.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal acknowledged that the applicants had mistakenly pursued the wrong remedy by filing a revision petition before the Government of India instead of directly filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the delay until the receipt of the order from the Government of India could be condonable, but the subsequent delay in preparing the appeal documents lacked sufficient cause. The Tribunal emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory right and can be admitted after the expiry of the period only if there is a valid and sufficient cause. They found that the delay in preparing the appeal documents after receiving the revision order did not meet the criteria for sufficient cause. The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the stay application and the appeal as time-barred.