Appeal delay excused for administrative challenges; adjournment granted for document collection.

The delay of 64 days in filing the appeals was condoned due to administrative challenges faced by the committee reviewing the orders. The appellant satisfactorily explained the delay, attributing it to administrative difficulties encountered by the committee. The delay was considered justified based on the circumstances. Additionally, an adjournment of the hearing on stay applications was granted to allow the SDR to obtain necessary documents, with the proceedings adjourned to a later date.

---

---

Issues: Delay in filing appeals, condonation of delay, adjournment of hearing on stay applications.

Delay in filing appeals:
The judgment addresses a delay of 64 days in filing the appeals, which should have been filed within 90 days from the date the impugned orders were received by the appellant. The appellant filed the appeals on 20-10-2005, excluding the date of receipt. The consultant argued for a delay of 65 days, not excluding the receipt date. The appellant satisfactorily explained the delay, attributing it to administrative difficulties encountered by the committee reviewing the orders. The delay was condoned based on the explanation provided and the circumstances surrounding the case.

Condonation of delay:
The delay of 64 days in filing the appeals was explained by the appellant, citing administrative challenges faced by the committee reviewing the orders. The judgment highlights the formation of a committee of Commissioners of Central Excise under a specific notification to review orders. Due to the absence of a regular Commissioner at Madurai and the additional charge being held by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli, the committee faced administrative difficulties causing the delay. The delay was condoned considering these factors and the satisfactory explanation provided by the appellant.

Adjournment of hearing on stay applications:
During the proceedings, the learned SDR requested an adjournment of the hearing on the stay applications to obtain certain documents from the Commissionerate concerned. The request for adjournment was granted, and the stay applications were adjourned to 21-4-2006. The judgment does not provide further details on the nature of the stay applications or the specific documents sought by the SDR, focusing primarily on the procedural aspect of granting the adjournment request for obtaining necessary documentation.

---