Appeal dismissed due to time-barred filing and lack of sufficient cause for delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as time-barred, rejecting their argument that the limitation period should start from the receipt of the certified copy of the order-in-appeal. The Tribunal found no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, noting the lack of efforts by the Collector of Central Excise to obtain the certified copy despite being informed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Timeliness of the appeal filed by the Revenue.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Timeliness of the appeal filed by the Revenue
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The respondents contended that the appeal was time-barred as per Section 35B(3) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The key point of contention was whether the appeal was within the three-month limitation period from the date of communication of the impugned order-in-appeal or from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order. The Revenue argued that the limitation period should be counted from the date of receipt of the certified copy, citing relevant case laws. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the appeal was time-barred, emphasizing that mere non-communication of the order to the Executive Collector was not a sufficient cause for delay. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument and dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

Issue 2: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal
The Revenue filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing reasons for the delay in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order-in-appeal. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise had requested the respondents to provide the paper book and Memo of Appeal, leading to the discovery of the impugned order. The Revenue argued that the limitation period should be counted from the date of receipt of the certified copy, as per CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. However, the Tribunal found no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the Collector of Central Excise did not make efforts to obtain the certified copy from the Collector (Appeals) despite being informed by the respondents' counsel. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of evidence to support the claim of non-receipt of the impugned order, leading to the rejection of the condonation of delay application and subsequent dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appeal was time-barred and rejected the application for condonation of delay, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Revenue.

---