9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (6) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for condonation of delay which was received in the registry on the same day but due to inadvertence the same could not be linked with the main file by the registry and as such no notice of the same was taken. Shri Arora stated that being not satisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal on 25-2-1991, the Collector has moved an application for restoration of appeal by another letter dated 6-6-1991. The Revenue has prayed for treating the application for restoration of appeal as an application for rectification of mistake. Shri T.R. Sastry, the learned Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent does not oppose the request of the learned JDR. 2. After hearing both sides, we accept the prayer of the Revenue for treating the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Limited reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 (S.C.). He has pleaded for the rejection of the application for condonation of delay and dismissal of the appeal being hit by limitation. 5. We have heard both sides and have gone through the facts of the case. 6. The date of communication of the Collector's order has been shown as 24th June, 1985 in column 3 of the Form E.A. 3. The appeal was received in the Registry on 5th November, 1985. In terms of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, an appeal has to be filed within three months from the date of communication of the impugned order. Thus, the appeal should have been filed on or before 24th Sep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-3-1987 there is no cogent and possible explanation. It may be mentioned that the special leave petition was actually filed on 23-3-1987. There is no whisper to explain what "legal problems in filing the special leave petition arose" it appears to us that no attempt has been made to explain this delay. In that view of the matter we gave further opportunity to the petitioners to file additional affidavit explaining the cause, if any, for this delay. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit on the counter-affidavit on behalf of the Respondents that "such delay is always beyond the control of especially in Government matters as the file has to be routed through several sections of the Department". We are aware of the fact that the Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
