9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is as follows :- (i) Date of receipt of Order-in-appeal 23-5-1992. (ii) Date of receipt of Revision Application by the Revisionary Authority 21-8-1992. (iii) Date of receipt of Order-in-Revision 8-12-1992. (iv) Date by which appeal was to be filed to the CEGAT 23-8-1992. (v) Date on which the appeal was actually filed to CEGAT 11-1-1993. (vi) Time spent on Revision Application namely from the date of receipt of the Revision Application by the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India and the date of receipt of the order of the Revisional Authority on the said Revision Application 108 days. (vii) No. of Hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime taken before the Govt. of India is excluded, it remains 28 days which has to be considered. On receipt of the dismissal order passed by the Govt. of India on maintainability, the appellants were all along diligent in consulting the counsel and preparing the appeal and there was no negligence or latches on the part of the applicants in filing the appeal. It was emphasised that delay in filing the appeal occurred firstly due to the lack of knowledge on the part of the applicants as to the correct Appellate Authority before whom the said appeal could be filed and thereafter delay that has occurred is due to preparation of papers and not due to any negligence on the part of the appellants as can be seen from the affidavit filed that authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate and at any rate the applicant should not suffer for the negligence and indifference of the solicitors as it was observed by the Tribunal in the case of Zenith Electronics v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 746. He requested to condone delay in filing the appeal since delay has not occurred due to the deliberate or culpable negligence but due to the ignorance in filing the revision before the wrong forum. 4. While opposing the application for condonation of delay Shri M.K. Jain, learned SDR submitted that it is not correct to say that the applicants were misled by Note No. 1 of Notes Guidance of the impugned order since note No. 2 specifically envisages that appeal should be filed within three months be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was pending before the other authority upto a particular point of time and since the order was communicated to the applicants on 8-12-1992, we are of the opinion that delay, if any, upto that period was condonable but the point to be considered in this appeal is whether the applicants were prevented from sufficient cause not to prefer an appeal in the subsequent period on receipt of the order. It is well settled principle that right of appeal is neither a fundamental right nor a natural right but only a statutory right. Statute provides that Tribunal may admit an appeal after expiry of the period if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within the said period. It was explained in the affidavit that on rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to lay down precisely as to what facts or matters would constitute `sufficient cause , under Section 35B(5) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The delay in filing an appeal should not have been for reasons which indicate the party s negligence in not taking necessary steps which it would have or should have taken. What would be such necessary steps will again depend upon the circumstances of a particular case, but the expression `sufficient cause cannot be construed too liberally, merely because the party was busy in consulting and preparing the appeal papers. In our view the applicants were not diligent for the subsequent period on receipt of the revision order passed by the Government of India and, accordingly, condonation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
