9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cated to the appellants on 10.5. 1986 - a fact which is admitted to the appellants in their Memorandum of Appeal - and the appeal was received in the Registry on 15-10-1986 that is to say, beyond the time limit as prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In their application for condonation of delay the appellants have stated that the impugned order was received in their office on 10-5-1986 and the same was handed over to the Counsel for submitting the appeal against the above order. It is alleged that the Counsel for the appellants drafted the appeal and handed over the same to the employee of the Company and a draft dated 24.6.1986 for the requisite fees as required under sub-section (6) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to that, the appellants have filed the another affidavit of one Shri Bharat Patni, describing himself the Director of the appellant company. In that affidavit he had stated that the said Shri Mehta left the job on 30.6.1986 and the file was received from Shri Mehta on 10.10.1986. 3. After giving my due consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties and submissions made in the application and the affidavit, I am of the opinion that no case for condonation of delay is made out by the appellants. Under sub-section (3) of Section 35-B, ibid appeal is required to be filed within 3 months from the date on which the impugned order is communicated to the party. In the instant case admittedly the impugned order was received by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these facts in his earlier affidavit remains a mystery and leads to an irresistible conclusion that the reasons stated in the affidavit filed subsequent to the hearing of the application for condonation of delay are after thought. It is also unbelievable, in the absence of any documentary evidence on record that Shri Mehta, an employee of the appellant company would take the file on 30-6-1986 and the appellant company would remain silent without serving any notice or making a request in writing when in para 4 of the affidavit filed subsequent to the hearing it is stated that on 7-5-1986 itself it was noticed that the file pertaining to the present appeal was missing. To say that the concerned papers were received from Shri Mehta on 10-10-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he draft for the requisite fees was purchased on 24-6-1986, that is to say, within the prescribed period for filing the appeal does not change the complex of the case, for at the most it can be said in favour of the appellants that on the date of the purchase of the bank draft for the requisite fees on 24-6-1986 the appellant company had decided to file the appeal. It cannot be treated by itself a sufficient cause for condonation of delay which had occurred subsequent to the purchase of the said bank draft particularly after the expiry of the prescribed period on 10-8-1986. In paragraph 4 of the application in hand the appellants have stated as follows: The draft dated 24-6-1986 which was purchased to submit the appeal clearly shows that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
