2000 (11) TMI 1155 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal dismisses department's appeal on delay condonation, citing no document manipulation.

The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal against the Collector (Appeals)'s decision to condone a delay in filing appeals by Mahalaxmi Glass Works, ... Condonation of delay - exercise of discretionary power to admit delayed appeal - reliance on alleged manipulation of acknowledgment - requirement of probative evidence - handwriting comparison without expert evidence - effect of previous adjudication on merits in exercise of discretion - remand for consideration of condonationCondonation of delay - exercise of discretionary power to admit delayed appeal - reliance on alleged manipulation of acknowledgment - requirement of probative evidence - handwriting comparison without expert evidence - effect of previous adjudication on merits in exercise of discretion - Whether the delay of eight days in filing the departmental appeals ought to have been condoned despite apparent discrepancies in the receipt acknowledgment and the department's allegation of manipulation. - HELD THAT: - The Collector found an eight days' delay and noted inconsistent dates and times in the acknowledgements relied upon by the assessee, but nonetheless condoned the delay in view of the Collector (Appeals)'s order and the Tribunal's prior merits decision. The Court held that the Collector (Appeals)'s expression of a 'lurking doubt' about the mode of joining letters and numbers in the acknowledgements, without expert handwriting evidence or other probative material, did not justify refusing condonation. Where only a speculative or non-expert doubt exists about alleged manipulation of documents, such doubt is insufficient to defeat the discretionary power to admit a delayed appeal. Further, the Tribunal's favourable determination on merits reinforced the appropriateness of exercising discretion to condone the short delay. In these circumstances there was no basis to interfere with the order condoning the delay.Delay of eight days was rightly condoned; departmental challenge to condonation fails and is dismissed.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed. The discretionary condonation of the short delay in filing the departmental appeals is upheld; there is no adequate evidentiary basis to refuse condonation and no interference with the Tribunal's and Collector (Appeals)'s orders is warranted. The Collector filed appeals against the order of the Collector (Appeals) confirming duty demand on Mahalaxmi Glass Works. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Collector (Appeals) to condone a delay of eight days in filing the appeals. The Collector (Appeals) condoned the delay, but the department appealed, arguing manipulation of documents. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to disagree with the Collector (Appeals)'s decision.