2001 (11) TMI 133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... two separate Orders-in-Appeal No. C. Cus. No. 141/2001, dated 16-3-2001 and C. Cus. No. 142/2001, dated 16-3-2001. There is a delay of 58 days in filing these two appeals and the Asst. Commissioner (Review cell) has filed the application seeking condonation in both the appeals. 2. The application has not been filed by the Commissioner of Customs, nor the affidavit has been filed by him in it's s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... out to various judgments cited in the application and submits that the same should be taken into consideration for condoning the delay. Further reference has been made to Collector, Anantanag v. M.S.T. Katiji [1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.)] wherein the Apex Court took the view that a pedantic approach should not be taken and one day's delay is required to be condoned. Further more judgments have be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... actory. The negligence is patent on record. Only if sufficient cause is shown and by which the negligence is not brought out but due diligence has been shown, then only the delay is required to be condoned. The delay of 58 days has not been explained. The person in charge who has misplaced the original documents or the delay in tracing of documents has not been explained. Revenue had three months .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X