1992 (6) TMI 137 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants condonation for delayed supplementary appeals, emphasizing liberal approach.

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus SPEEDWAY RUBBER CO.

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus SPEEDWAY RUBBER CO. - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 425 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Whether the delay in filing supplementary appeals can be condoned when the main appeal is filed within the statutory time limit.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the delay in filing supplementary appeals can be condoned when the main appeal is filed within the statutory time limit:The primary issue at hand is whether the delay in filing supplementary appeals should be condoned when the main appeal is filed within the statutory time limit. The Revenue filed a main appeal in time but delayed filing two supplementary appeals. The Revenue argued that separate appeals were required against a common order-in-appeal dated 12-3-1991, relying on the Tribunal's ruling in Ekantika Copiers P Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, which mandated separate appeals for separate orders-in-original.The Tribunal considered the practice of condoning delays in filing supplementary appeals if the main appeal is timely, as supported by the Larger Bench decision in C.C.E. v. Gujarat Phenolic Synthetics P. Ltd. The respondents opposed the condonation, arguing that the authorization clearly stated that three appeals were needed, and the Assistant Collector's failure to file them was inexcusable.The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and past rulings, noting that the majority view in similar cases condoned delays if the main appeal was timely. However, the minority opinion emphasized that each case should be examined on its merits, and sufficient cause must be shown for the delay.The Tribunal's guidelines for condonation of delay, derived from Supreme Court rulings, were reiterated. These include the necessity of establishing sufficient cause for not filing within the prescribed time, the irrelevance of ignorance of law, and the condition that a mistake by a lawyer can be a valid reason if it is honest.The majority view, as in previous cases like Gujarat Phenolic and Century Enka Limited, held that delays in filing supplementary appeals should be condoned if the main appeal was timely. The minority view, however, stressed that condonation should not be automatic and must consider the merits of each case.The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Wadhya Mal v. Prem Chand, which condoned delays to allow appeals to be adjudicated on merits, emphasizing that a strict view should not be taken if the main appeal is already under challenge.Ultimately, the majority opinion favored condoning the delay in filing the supplementary appeals, aligning with the liberal approach adopted in previous cases. The minority view, advocating for a more stringent examination of each case's merits, was overruled.Conclusion:The Tribunal, by majority opinion, allowed the applications for condonation of delay in filing the supplementary appeals, emphasizing a liberal approach in such cases where the main appeal is filed within the statutory time limit.