1994 (12) TMI 183 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal based on pursuing remedy before the wrong forum under a genuine belief.

Analysis:
The appeal for condonation of delay was filed concerning order-in-appeal No. 8/Cus./CHD/94, dated 23-5-1994. The Revenue initially filed a Revision Application before the Central Government under Section 35 EE of the Central Excises and Salt Act, claiming the matter pertained to draw back and thus was the proper forum. However, upon advice from a Senior Technical Officer, the Revenue filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue sought to exclude the time spent pursuing the remedy before the wrong forum and condone the 19-day delay, citing precedents where condonation was allowed in similar cases.

The Advocate for the respondent argued that the appellants did not show urgency in pursuing the appellate remedy, even after realizing the correct forum. Citing cases where applications for condonation were rejected due to lack of urgency, the respondent contended that the remedies were not pursued diligently. The sequence of events presented by the Revenue indicated delays and lack of urgency in pursuing the appeal.

The Tribunal analyzed the sequence of events and noted that the appellants did not pursue the appellate remedies with the required urgency and diligence, especially after the limitation period had expired. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of diligence and bona fides in considering a "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal highlighted that the preamble to the order-in-appeal clearly indicated that the appeal should have been made to the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Pursuing remedies before the wrong forum based on a genuine belief was not accepted as a sufficient cause for condonation, especially when the correct forum was indicated in the order-in-appeal itself. The Tribunal distinguished cited cases and emphasized the need for diligence in pursuing legal remedies.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself, without delving into the merits, as it was time-barred due to lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal within the prescribed timeline.