9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-1992. 2.List of dates and events given by the applicants during the course of the hearing on 12-7-1994 is as follows :- Sl. No. Date Event 1. 27-2-1991 Order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. 2. 8-3-1991 Order received by the appellants. 3. 9-5-1991 The appellants filed in the office of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. The appeal was titled as `Before the Collector (Appeals), Central Board of Excise Customs, Sector-17, Chandigarh. The appeal contained 18 pages. Memo of appeal from page 18-10. 30-9-1985 Copy of Gazette of India taking over Ply Board Industries Limited, Pampore. Typed copy of Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20-8-1991 Date of receipt of the above appeal papers by Registry of CEGAT. 12. 26-8-1991 Letter of the Assistant Registrar returning the appeal papers as sent not being in Form E.A. 3, DD not enclosed etc. 13. 25-12-1991 Appellant s letter No. PBI/SLS/91/1203-04/11 addressed to Assistant Registrar, CEGAT sent by Regd. Post enclosing documents. 14. Date of receipt of above documents by the Registry of CEGAT. 15. 19-11-1993 Appellants filed an application alongwith an affidavit in support of condonation of delay application numbered as E/Misc/1202/ 93-D containing 6 pages. 16. 12-4-1994 Appellants filed a date chart duly signed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EA-3, DD etc. were not enclosed, the same were returned to the party on 26-8-1991. EA-3 form alongwith the relevant papers were addressed to the Assistant Registrar, CEGAT, by registered post on 25-12-1991. He submitted that the applicants were pursuing wrong remedy upto 17-6-1991 as can be seen from the records and delay was required to be explained by the applicants from 17-6-1991 to 19-8-1991 since the appeal papers were presented on 20-8-1991. He contended that upto 20-8-1991 the applicants were pursuing remedy in a wrong forum but subsequent delay has been caused due to the fact that applicants unit has been situated in remote corner and it is well known that entire Valley of Kashmir is seriously disturbed by reported militant activi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es is neither a ground nor sufficient cause to condone inordinate delay in filing the appeal. He contended that letter dated Nil received in the office of the Tribunal on 20-8-1991 cannot be taken as an appeal in the eye of law as it was neither in the prescribed form nor supported by institution fee. Further it is not clear whether mere letter was filed or it was filed alongwith the annexures as it is not supported by any evidence. Subsequent delay was also not explained properly with sufficient cause and, accordingly, the application is liable to be rejected. Filing of appeal in a casual and leisurely way and plea of wrong advice cannot be considered as sufficient cause since every day s delay is to be explained, and in support of his con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufficient cause to condone delay as it was rightly argued by the Departmental Representative. Assuming that the applicants were pursuing remedy before different wrong forums under bona fide mistake but why further delay has been caused on receipt of the papers from the office of the Collector (Appeals), Chandigarh after 17-6-1991 is not clearly explained and cause is not supported by evidence to constitute sufficient cause to condone delay. We are of the view that mere letter filed by the applicants before the Assistant Registrar, CEGAT, is not an appeal in the eye of law and decision referred to by the applicants in the case of Orient Letho Press (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case since in that case the applicants have tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the facts of this case in view of the peculiar circumstances. It is not possible 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 to condone inordinate delay in this case. In our view, the applicants were not diligent for the subsequent period on receipt of the appeal papers from the office of the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
