1990 (3) TMI 170 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal dismisses appeal due to delay without valid reasons, citing Supreme Court precedents

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, against an order by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The ... Condonation of delay - Limitation - Inter-departmental correspondence not sufficient cause - Requirement to explain each day's delay - Discretion under Section 35B(5) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944Condonation of delay - Inter-departmental correspondence not sufficient cause - Requirement to explain each day's delay - Discretion under Section 35B(5) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was rejected and the appeal dismissed as barred by limitation. - HELD THAT: - The appellant sought condonation on the ground that the matter was under correspondence with the lower formation to obtain further details and therefore the appeal was filed late. The Tribunal examined the explanation and found it to be limited to inter-departmental correspondence. Reliance on Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji was held inapposite. The Tribunal applied binding principles in Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. and Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., holding that inter-departmental processing ordinarily does not constitute sufficient cause and that, after expiry of limitation, the appellant must satisfactorily account for the delay (including day-to-day explanation where required) before discretion to condone can be exercised. On the facts the Court found no sufficient cause to excuse the delay and declined to exercise its discretionary power under sub-section (5) of Section 35B, thus rejecting the condonation application and concluding that the appeal is hit by limitation. [Paras 5, 6, 7]Application for condonation of delay rejected; appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal refused to condone the delayed filing, finding inter-departmental correspondence an insufficient explanation, and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. Issues:- Appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore.- Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.- Plea for condonation of delay by the appellant.- Argument against condonation of delay by the respondent.- Examination of facts and circumstances by the Tribunal.- Interpretation of legal provisions regarding condonation of delay.- Application of precedents in similar cases.- Decision on the application for condonation of delay and subsequent dismissal of the appeal.Detailed Analysis:The judgment involves an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, against an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The appeal was received with an application for condonation of delay due to the appellant's claim of needing time to ascertain the legal position before filing. The appellant argued that there was no negligence or wilful neglect in filing the appeal, citing a Supreme Court judgment to support the plea for condonation of delay.On the other hand, the respondent contended that the appeal was time-barred and did not warrant condonation of delay. The Tribunal examined the facts, including the reason provided in the application for condonation of delay, which stated that the delay was due to correspondence with lower staff to gather additional details. However, the Tribunal noted that this reason alone did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.The Tribunal referred to relevant Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing the need for a party to explain each day's delay after the expiration of the limitation period. The judgment highlighted that mere inter-departmental correspondence and processing were not considered sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Additionally, the Tribunal cited precedents where delays were not condoned due to lack of a valid reason.Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred. The Tribunal decided not to delve into the merits of the case due to the dismissal based on limitation issues.