Appeal Dismissed due to Time-Barred Filing; Delay Condonation Rejected

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred, rejecting the condonation of delay application. The appellants' argument that the time taken to obtain the certified copy should be excluded from calculating the period of limitation was not accepted. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal promptly, noting discrepancies in the dates mentioned in the appeal memos. The absence of the Excise Assistant was deemed insufficient justification for the delay, leading to the rejection of the condonation application and the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta.

The judgment pertains to a condonation of delay application filed in relation to an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The appellants received the impugned order on 17-12-1987 but obtained the certified copy only on 11-10-1988, subsequently filing the appeal on 13-11-1988. The appellants argued that as per CEGAT procedure rules, an appeal must be filed along with a certified copy of the impugned order. They contended that the time taken to obtain the certified copy should be excluded from calculating the period of limitation. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to the absence of their Excise Assistant. The appellants sought condonation of the delay based on these grounds.

The Respondent, however, opposed the condonation, stating that the appeal could have been filed enclosing the copy of the order received on 17-12-1987, and the certified copy could have been forwarded later. The Respondent highlighted that the Tribunal had been accepting appeals in this manner and allowing certified copies to be filed subsequently in similar cases. The Respondent argued that the appellants could have filed the appeal soon after receiving the certified copy but failed to do so, providing no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Respondent emphasized that the absence of the Excise Assistant was not a justifiable reason for the delay, as alternative arrangements could have been made to file the appeal promptly.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and observed discrepancies in the dates mentioned in the appeal memos filed by the appellants. The date of communication of the order, crucial for calculating the time limit under Section 35-B (3), was consistently noted as 17-12-1987. The Tribunal held that the appellants were required to explain the entire delay beyond this date, as the late receipt of the certified copy was not a valid excuse for condonation. The Tribunal found that the appellants had not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay and rejected the application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred, emphasizing that the absence of the Excise Assistant was not a justifiable reason for the delay in filing the appeal promptly.

---