1988 (3) TMI 333 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal dismissed as time-barred; request for condonation rejected. Procedural lapse cited.

GODREJ BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX.

GODREJ BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX. - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 83 (Tribunal) Issues:Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Merits of condonation of delay, Legal principles regarding condonation of delay, Justification for condoning delay.Analysis:The case involved an appeal filed by M/s. Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Bombay against an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The appeal was presented with a request for Condonation of Delay as the date of communication mentioned was 15th August, 1988, but the appeal was filed on 26th December, 1988. The appellant's consultant requested an adjournment to substantiate arguments for condonation of delay, which was opposed by the Senior Departmental Representative. The Bench referred to a Supreme Court decision and granted an adjournment until 8th March, 1989. However, after almost 37 days, the consultant failed to provide sufficient justification for the delay, leading the Bench to reject the request for further adjournment.On the merits of the condonation of delay application, the consultant argued that the delay was due to the officer dealing with the matter being on leave, resulting in the appellant losing sight of the papers. The consultant emphasized that not condoning the delay would cause great injustice and financial loss to the appellant. He also cited a Supreme Court judgment to support his arguments. The Senior Departmental Representative opposed the condonation of delay, citing a previous Tribunal judgment.The Bench referred to a Supreme Court case which held that filing an appeal after the limitation period due to movements of papers is not sufficient cause. In this case, the only reason provided for the delay was the officer's leave, without mentioning the officer's name or providing an affidavit confirming the circumstances. The Bench highlighted legal principles emphasizing that the proof of sufficient cause is essential for condonation of delay and that diligence and bona fides of the party are crucial factors. Considering the facts and legal principles, the Bench concluded that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 37 days and rejected the request for condonation.As a result of rejecting the condonation of delay, the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed due to being time-barred, without delving into the merits of the case. The decision was based on the lack of justification for the delay and the failure to meet the legal requirements for condonation of delay.