Tribunal rejects appeals due to delay in filing, citing lack of diligence.

The Tribunal rejected three appeals (C/666/91, C/667/91, and C/668/91) due to the appellants' lack of diligence in filing them promptly after becoming aware of the correct forum. The delay in filing the appeals, attributed to a misunderstanding by the clearing agent, was deemed inexcusable by the judge. Emphasizing the importance of diligence in legal proceedings, the Tribunal held that the delay could not be condoned, resulting in the rejection of the appeals.

---

---

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The condonation of delay applications were filed for three appeals. The first two appeals (C/666/91 & C/668/91) were received on 24-3-1991, and filed on 11-9-1991, with a delay of over 2 months and 16 days. The third appeal (C/667/91) had the impugned order received on 10-1-1991, a revision application filed on 3-4-1991, and the appeal filed on 11-9-1991.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay was due to the misunderstanding of the original authority's order by the clearing agent acting on behalf of the appellant. The counsel stated that the matter was perceived as short landing of goods initially, but later it was realized to be shortages after landing, falling under the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The appellant's unit faced difficulties and relied heavily on the clearing agent. The appeals were filed within the permissible time for revision applications.

3. The respondent's counsel contended that the appellants were at fault for the delay, as they should have been diligent in pursuing the appellate remedy once they were aware of the correct forum for filing the appeals.

4. The judge noted that the issue shifted from short landing to shortages after landing, clarified by the Government of India's order on 21-6-1991. The judge found the appellants negligent for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals after becoming aware of the correct forum. The judge emphasized that the law supports diligence, not negligence, and therefore, the delay in filing the appeals could not be condoned, leading to the rejection of the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeals due to the appellants' lack of diligence in pursuing the appellate remedy despite being aware of the correct forum for filing the appeals. The delay in filing the appeals was not condoned, emphasizing the importance of timely action and diligence in legal proceedings.

---