9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In terms of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the appeal has to be filed within three months from the date of communication of the order. The application for condonation of delay duly supported with an affidavit has also been filed. Thereafter, Shri R.K. Habbu, learned Advocate has filed his own affidavit which pertains to the delay occurred in his office for filing of the appeal. Shri R.K. Habbu, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He reiterated the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay. He pleaded that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in late filing of the appeal and the bona fide of the appellant should not be doubted. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce there is negligence on the part of the appellant, it cannot be treated as sufficient cause. In support of his argument, he cited a decision of the Honourable Rajasthan High Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ramnath and Others reported in A.I.R. 1972 Rajasthan 161. He argued that the facts and circumstances in each case have to be looked into. In support of his argument, he cited a decision of Honourable Calcutta High Court in the case of Khajesh Habibullah and Others v. Abdul Karim Abu Khan and Others reported in A.I.R. 1933 Calcutta 462. Shri Singhal cited another decision in the case of Satish Chandra Prahlad Narain v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 589 (Tribunal). He argued that filing of appeal in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur view was fortified by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Nath Kar v. Gangadas and Others reported in A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 566. Para Nos. 6, 8 and 9 from the said judgment are reporduced below : * * * * * * Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq and Another v. Munshilal and Another, reported in A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 1400 in para No. 3 had held as under : * * * * * * The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mata Din v. A. Narayanan reported in A.I.R. 1970 SC 1953 in Para No. 7 had held as under : * * * * * * The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the conclusion that the lapse on the part of the counsel was bona fide, the Tribunal was right in condoning the delay. Accordingly, we answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative. Parties shall bear their own costs. The Tribunal in the case of Zenith Electronics v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 746 (Tribunal) in Para Nos. 6 7 has held as under : * * * * * * Shri R.K. Habbu, learned Advocate has filed an affidavit whereas there is no counter affidavit filed by the Revenue. The judgments cited by the learned JDR do not help him. In the matter before us, the appellant had filed the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) bona fidely within the limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
