1994 (7) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Whether the delay was due to sufficient cause.
3. The impact of pursuing remedy in the wrong forum.
4. The adequacy of the explanation for subsequent delays.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal
The applicants sought condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was caused as the appeal was initially filed before the wrong forum, specifically the Collector (Appeals), Chandigarh, instead of the CEGAT, New Delhi. The appeal was eventually filed at the correct forum but significantly after the prescribed period.

2. Whether the Delay Was Due to Sufficient Cause
The applicants argued that there was no negligence or latches on their part, attributing the delay to various circumstances, including the initial filing in the wrong forum and subsequent misdirection of the appeal papers. They cited disturbances in the Kashmir Valley and the need to pursue proceedings before different authorities as factors contributing to the delay. They referenced the Tribunal's decisions in Collector of Customs, Jaipur v. Instrumentation Ltd., Kota and Sparr Equipments Ltd., Bangalore v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore to argue that pursuing proceedings before different authorities constitutes a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

3. The Impact of Pursuing Remedy in the Wrong Forum
The applicants initially filed the appeal before the wrong forum and continued to pursue it there despite specific directions to file it at the correct forum. The Tribunal noted that while time taken before the wrong forum might be condoned if it was under a bona fide mistake, repeatedly pursuing the wrong forum cannot be considered a sufficient cause. The Tribunal emphasized that the applicants, being a State Government Unit with a permanent representative in Delhi, should have taken proper steps to file the appeal correctly.

4. The Adequacy of the Explanation for Subsequent Delays
The Tribunal found that the delay from 17-6-1991 to 19-8-1991 was not adequately explained. The applicants argued that the delay was due to disturbances in the Kashmir Valley, but the Tribunal was not convinced, noting that the applicants were able to pursue the matter before wrong forums during this period. The Tribunal also rejected the argument that a letter filed on 20-8-1991 should be considered as the date of filing the appeal, as it was neither in the prescribed form nor supported by the requisite fee.

Conclusion
The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not properly explained and that the applicants did not demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. The appeal was processed in a casual manner without proper advice or diligence. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as barred by time. The Tribunal emphasized that the right of appeal is statutory and that the expression "sufficient cause" cannot be construed too liberally to condone inordinate delays.