Judge dismisses late applications in tax dispute, emphasizes Collector's responsibility.

The judge dismissed the condonation application and the reference application as time-barred due to a 12-day delay beyond the prescribed 60-day limit. Despite the applicant's grounds, including the belief that the Commissioner would contest the order directly, the judge emphasized that the responsibility to file the reference application lies with the Collector of Central Excise. The judge ruled that the belief of the Collector does not constitute sufficient cause for the delay, especially when there is a clear provision of law mandating timely action.

---

---

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing a reference application before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT.

The judgment pertains to a condonation application filed in connection with a reference application submitted concerning the Tribunal's order. The delay in filing the reference application was 12 days beyond the prescribed time limit of 60 days. The applicant sought condonation of the delay based on certain grounds, including the belief that the Commissioner would contest the order directly, leading to delayed action. The departmental officer emphasized that a liberal approach should be adopted in such cases, citing precedents supporting this view. The respondent, however, opposed the condonation request, arguing that the department failed to show sufficient cause for the delay. The respondent highlighted that a small amount was involved and negligence does not constitute sufficient cause.

Upon considering the submissions, the judge noted the unusual ground put forth by the Collector regarding the belief that the Commissioner would contest the order directly, justifying the delay. However, the judge pointed out that the responsibility of filing the reference application lies with the Collector of Central Excise as per Section 35G, irrespective of internal administrative processes involving the Commissioner or the Board. The judge emphasized that the belief of the Collector cannot be deemed a sufficient cause for the delay, especially when there is a clear provision of law mandating timely action. Consequently, the judge dismissed the condonation application and the reference application as time-barred, highlighting that the cases cited by the applicant did not support the department's cause.

---