Appeals must be filed with the Tribunal, not the Collector, to comply with directions. Delay not condoned.

The Tribunal held that appeals should have been filed before the Tribunal, not the Collector (Appeals), due to compliance with the Collector's directions. The delay of 9 months and 10 days in filing the appeals was not condoned as the appellants were deemed negligent in knowing the correct forum for appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as time-barred and rejected the applications for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of stay applications as well.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of appeal - Whether appeals should be filed before the Collector (Appeals) or the Tribunal.
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of appeal
The appellants contended that the appeals should have been filed before the Collector (Appeals) based on the directions in the preamble of the order passed by the Assistant Collector. However, the respondent argued that appeals lie with the Tribunal when orders are passed in compliance with directions issued by the Collector. The Tribunal noted that the orders were received on 2-4-1992, requiring the appeal to be filed by 2-7-1992. The appeals were actually filed on 12-4-1993, resulting in a delay of 9 months and 10 days. The appellants' argument for condonation of delay was based on misdirection in the preamble, citing case laws. The respondent opposed, stating that the appellants were aware of the proper forum for appeal. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision emphasizing that appeals against consequential orders of lower authorities should be directed to the Tribunal when the basic order is from the Collector. As the Assistant Collector's orders were in compliance with the Collector's directions, the appeals should have been filed before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay and dismissed the appeals as time-barred.

Issue 2: Condonation of delay
The appellants argued that the delay in filing the appeals was due to the department's misguidance through the preamble of the Assistant Collector's order. They sought condonation of the 9 months and 10 days delay, citing various case laws. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the delay was a result of the appellants' negligence as they should have known the correct forum for appeal. The Tribunal found merit in the respondent's argument, emphasizing that the Assistant Collector's orders were based on the Collector's directions, making the Tribunal the appropriate forum for appeal. As the appellants were not prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeals within the stipulated time limit, the Tribunal rejected the applications for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeals as time-barred. Consequently, the stay applications were also dismissed as infructuous.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues regarding jurisdiction of appeal and the condonation of delay, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and decisions made by the Tribunal.

---