Tribunal allows appeal, condones delay due to mistaken belief & advocate's schedule. Precedents support ruling.

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, condoning the delay in filing based on a mistaken belief that the appeal should be filed before the Collector (Appeals) and the advocate's busy schedule. The decision was supported by legal precedents emphasizing bona fide mistakes by counsel in condoning delays, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant due to sufficient cause preventing timely filing.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and whether it should be condoned.

Analysis:
The appellant, M/s. Sanghi Motors, Bombay (P) Ltd., filed an appeal against the order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The appeal was presented in the registry on 10th September 1993, beyond the three-month period prescribed by Section 35B(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellant sought condonation of delay, attributing it to a mistaken belief that the appeal should be filed before the Collector (Appeals) due to an amendment in the law. The appellant's advocate, Shri R.K. Habbu, argued that the delay was due to the office's busy schedule and should be condoned based on sufficient cause. The respondent, represented by Shri A.K. Singhal, opposed the condonation, citing negligence on the appellant's part and legal precedents to support the argument that filing in the wrong forum cannot be considered a sufficient cause.

The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances of the case, noting that the impugned order was received on 18th January 1993, and the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period. However, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's contention that the appeal was filed bona fide before the Collector (Appeals) based on a mistaken interpretation of the law. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court decision in Rajendra Nath Kar v. Gangadas to support its view that the appeal was filed in good faith. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted various legal precedents that emphasized the importance of bona fide mistakes by counsel in condoning delays.

The Tribunal further emphasized that the appellant had filed the appeal within the limitation period prescribed under the Act, and the delay in filing was attributed to the advocate's busy schedule. In the absence of a counter affidavit from the Revenue and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was based on the appellant's bona fide belief in filing before the Collector (Appeals) and the advocate's busy schedule as a sufficient cause for the delay. The legal principles regarding the importance of bona fide mistakes by counsel in condoning delays were crucial in the Tribunal's decision-making process, ultimately leading to the allowance of the condonation of delay application.

---