1995 (7) TMI 162 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Alternative plea to treat the appeal as a cross-objection.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, sought condonation of a 43-day delay in filing an appeal against an order dated 12-3-1993. The appeal should have been filed by 16-6-1993 but was received on 29-7-1993. The reasons cited were the absence of the concerned Collector due to leave and transfers, and the complexity and national importance of the issue, which required thorough consideration.

The application for condonation highlighted the absence of the Collector, Sri Moheb Ali, from 3-5-1993 to 18-6-1993, and the subsequent transfers and tours of other Collectors. The Principal Collector was also on tour during critical periods.

The department argued that the complexity of the issue, involving conflicting judgments on the classification of products with Ayurvedic ingredients, constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. They referenced previous Tribunal decisions, such as the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Gujarat State Fertilisers Corporation Limited, which held that "sufficient cause" should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

The respondents, however, contended that the delay was due to routine handling of the matter and that there was no detailed explanation of the actions taken during the delay period. They cited several cases where delays by the government were not condoned, emphasizing that each case must establish sufficient cause.

The Tribunal noted that while government functioning might inherently involve delays, each case must still demonstrate sufficient cause. In this instance, the absence of detailed processing information during the critical period weakened the Collector's case. The Tribunal concluded that simply listing the dates of tours and transfers did not justify the delay.

2. Alternative Plea to Treat the Appeal as a Cross-Objection:
The department also requested that if the delay was not condoned, the appeal should be treated as a cross-objection to an existing appeal filed by the respondents, M/s. Procter & Gamble India Limited. The respondents opposed this, arguing it was not permissible.

One member of the Tribunal, however, supported the department's alternative plea, noting that the appeal was filed within 45 days of receiving the respondent's appeal notice. He argued that the absence of the concerned officers due to tours and transfers constituted a valid reason for the delay, and that the appeal should be heard on merits to advance substantial justice.

The majority of the Tribunal agreed with this view, citing the need for a pragmatic approach to condonation of delay, especially when substantial justice is at stake. They referenced the Supreme Court's justice-oriented approach in cases like Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, which emphasized that procedural delays should not impede substantive justice.

Final Order:
In view of the majority opinion, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the department. The Registry was directed to link this appeal with the existing appeal filed by the respondents (Appeal No. E/865/93-C) to be heard together.

← Previous Next →