Tribunal condones delay in filing appeals due to timely dispatch and no negligence

The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause to condone the 2-day delay in filing five appeals by the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, due to the appeals being dispatched before the expiry of the limitation period and received two days late, with no negligence or lack of bona fides on the applicant's part. Emphasizing the importance of advancing substantial justice, the Tribunal decided in favor of condoning the delay and returned the applications for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Determination of "sufficient cause" for delay.
3. Relevance of postal transit time.
4. Application of judicial precedents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:

The primary issue revolves around whether the delay in filing five appeals by the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, should be condoned. The appeals were dispatched by registered post on 28-11-1985 and received on 4-12-1985, two days after the limitation period expired on 2-12-1985. The applicant argued that the delay was beyond their control and should be condoned due to due diligence shown in dispatching the appeals before the expiry of the limitation period.

2. Determination of "Sufficient Cause" for Delay:

The applicant cited the Supreme Court judgment in *Ramlal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.* (AIR 1962 SC 361), emphasizing that the party applying for condonation must show why the appeal was not filed on the last day of the prescribed limitation period. The applicant argued that considerations of bona fides or due diligence were material and relevant. The Tribunal has the power to condone delays if there are good grounds, and in this case, the delay was attributed to postal transit, a factor beyond the applicant's control.

3. Relevance of Postal Transit Time:

The applicant contended that the normal postal transit time from Bhubaneswar to New Delhi was 5 to 6 days, and thus the delay should be excused. However, the respondent argued that the appeals were dispatched too close to the expiry date, showing negligence. The respondent cited the Orissa High Court judgment in *Brajabandhu Nanda v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa* [1962 (44) ITR 668], where a delay of one day due to postal transit was not considered sufficient cause for condonation.

4. Application of Judicial Precedents:

The applicant referred to several judgments, including *State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality and Others* (AIR 1972 SC 749), which advocated for a liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice. The respondent, on the other hand, relied on the Orissa High Court's decision in *Kella Appalaswamy and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Orissa* [1977 (106) ITR 487], which held that only unusual postal delay could be a ground for condonation. The Tribunal had to balance these precedents to determine whether the delay in the present case merited condonation.

Decision and Reasoning:

After considering the submissions and precedents, the Tribunal noted that the appeals were dispatched 5 days before the expiry of the limitation period and received 2 days late. The Tribunal emphasized that the Supreme Court in *Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.* had established that the party need not explain the delay during the entire limitation period but only why the appeal was not filed on the last day of the prescribed period. The Tribunal found no negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides on the part of the applicant, and substantial justice required that the appeals be heard on their merits. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause to condone the 2-day delay in filing the appeals.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal decided in favor of condoning the delay, emphasizing the importance of advancing substantial justice and the absence of negligence or inaction by the applicant. The applications were returned to the original Bench for passing appropriate orders in conformity with this decision.

---