1995 (10) TMI 82 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal denies Revenue's appeal delay request citing lack of grounds

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The delay of ... Condonation of delay - sufficient cause - laches and negligence - change of mind - inter-departmental delay and office procedure - revised opinion under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 - statutory time-limit for filing appealCondonation of delay - sufficient cause - laches and negligence - change of mind - inter-departmental delay and office procedure - statutory time-limit for filing appeal - Whether the 15 days' delay in filing the appeal should be condoned on grounds shown by the Collector/Revenue. - HELD THAT: - The application for condonation of delay was rejected. The Collector (Appeals) had accepted the appeals on 2-2-1995 and notified the Principal Collector on 3-2-1995; the Principal Collector did not give any opinion within the limitation period and furnished no affidavit or explanation for the delay in issuing a secondary opinion. There is no day-to-day chronology or steps taken to expedite filing after the Collector formed an initial opinion not to prefer appeal. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that a mere change of mind by the department or inter-departmental/office procedure delays do not ordinarily constitute sufficient cause for condonation, particularly where no satisfactory explanation, time-chart, or absence of laches is shown. Reliance on precedents establishes that unexplained or leisurely administrative conduct, lack of prompt action by the Principal Collector, and failure to justify each day's delay preclude condonation. The citations relied on by the Revenue were distinguishable; where delay was previously condoned, special circumstances existed (for example, concurrent appeals or demonstrable cause), which are absent here. The statutory option to form a revised opinion under Section 35B(2) could and should have been exercised within the limitation period if the Principal Collector intended to contest the Collector (Appeals) order; its non-exercise or delayed exercise is not a ground to extend time without adequate explanation.Application for condonation of 15 days' delay is rejected and, consequently, the appeal is dismissed for being time-barred.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal found no sufficient cause or absence of laches warranting condonation of the 15-day delay; lack of timely opinion from the Principal Collector, absence of explanation or time-chart, and a mere change of mind by the department did not justify extension of the statutory period, therefore the condonation application and the appeal were dismissed. Issues:Condonation of delay in filing an appeal by the Revenue before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi.Detailed Analysis:The application for condonation of appeal was filed by the Revenue to seek a delay of 15 days in filing the appeal. The Collector (Appeals) passed the impugned order on 14-12-1994, and the last date for filing the appeal was claimed to be 14-3-1995. The delay was attributed to the secondary scrutiny process by the Principal Collector, Central Excise, Bombay, causing the appeal papers to reach the Tribunal late. The issue before the Tribunal was whether there was any negligence or laches in the delay and if there was sufficient cause for condoning it. The Principal Collector did not provide an affidavit to explain the delay, and there was no day-to-day explanation for the delay from the last filing date until the actual filing date. The Tribunal had to determine if there were valid reasons for the delay in filing the appeal.The Respondent contested the application for condonation of delay and cited various judgments to argue against leniency. The judgments highlighted cases where delays were not condoned due to reasons such as change of mind, leisurely departmental attitude, lack of clear explanations for delays, and failure to show urgency in filing appeals. The Tribunal considered these arguments and citations to assess whether the reasons provided by the Revenue justified condoning the delay.The Tribunal carefully reviewed the submissions, citations, and facts of the case. The case involved classification issues related to F.R.P. bodies manufactured by the assessee. The Collector (Appeals) had allowed the appeals of the assessee based on previous judgments and the Tribunal's own decision in a similar case. The Principal Collector did not express an opinion on filing an appeal within the limitation period, even after being informed by the Collector. The Tribunal emphasized that the law entrusted the Collector with the decision to file an appeal and that any delay caused by a change of mind was not sufficient cause for condonation. The Principal Collector's failure to provide reasons for condoning the delay and the absence of a time chart further weakened the Revenue's case for condonation.Ultimately, the Tribunal found that there was no valid cause shown to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, leading to the rejection of the appeal itself. The decision was based on the lack of justifiable reasons for the delay and the failure to demonstrate urgency or necessity in contesting the Collector (Appeals) order. The Tribunal distinguished cases where delays were condoned based on valid reasons presented by the Government or department, which were absent in this particular case.