9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Shri Singhal pleaded that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal as the impugned order was under active consideration with the Department as the matter required a detailed scrutiny on the Collector level for true appreciation of the technical aspect of the case and as such the appeal could not be filed in time. Shri Singhal pleaded that the impugned Order was received on the 13th July, 1992 and the last date for the filing of the appeal was 13-10-1992 whereas the appeal was filed on 24-11-1992. Thus, there is a delay of 41 days though in the application for condonation of delay, the same has been mentioned as 43 days. Shri Singhal, in suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case. We have looked into the column 8(iii) of the appeal memo. The amount involved is mentioned as Rs. 473.95 and penalty of Rs. 100/-. The facts and circumstances mentioned in the application for condonation of delay do not justify condonation of delay and we are of the view that the appellant was not prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Limited reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 (S.C.) had held as under ;- From 26-12-1986 to 10-2-1987 and from 6-3-1987 to 24-3-1987 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. It cannot justify an enquiry as to why the party was sitting idle during all the time available to it. In this connec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
