1996 (11) TMI 276 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal denies condonation of delay in Customs appeal citing insufficient reasons

COLLECTOR OF C. EX., HYDERABAD Versus PROCTOR AND GAMBLE INDIA

The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay in Appeal No. E/1833/93-C filed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, ... Appeal by Department - Limitation - Condonation of delay Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.2. Delay in filing the appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad.3. Consideration of sufficient cause for condonation of delay.4. Compliance with the High Court's directive to submit an affidavit and necessary materials.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944:The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 35B, which provides for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. Specifically, sub-section (3) mandates that every appeal must be filed within three months from the date the order is communicated to the aggrieved party. Sub-section (5) allows the Tribunal to admit an appeal after the expiry of the period if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay.2. Delay in filing the appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad:The Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, filed the appeal on 28-7-1993, which was received by the Tribunal on 29-7-1993, resulting in a delay of 43 days from the statutory period ending on 16-6-1993. The reasons for the delay included the Collector being on long leave and the transfer of the officer holding additional charge.3. Consideration of sufficient cause for condonation of delay:The Tribunal initially condoned the delay by majority order. However, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, allowing the Collector to submit an affidavit and all relevant materials. The Collector's affidavit cited reasons such as the leave and transfer of officers, the complexity of the issue with all India ramifications, and the need for proper determination to avoid differential practices.4. Compliance with the High Court's directive to submit an affidavit and necessary materials:The Tribunal provided multiple opportunities for the Collector to submit a proper affidavit and necessary materials. The affidavit filed on 18-4-1996 reiterated the reasons previously given, including the leave and transfer of officers and the importance of the issue. However, the Tribunal noted that no new facts were presented, and the reasons remained insufficient as per the High Court's observations.Tribunal's Final Decision:The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and previous judgments cited, including the Supreme Court's pragmatic approach in State of Haryana v. Chandramani & Others, which allows some latitude for governmental delays. Despite this, the Tribunal found that the reasons provided did not constitute sufficient cause, especially given the importance of the issue and the lack of explanation for inaction during the Collector's presence in office. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the dismissal of Appeal No. E/1833/93-C filed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad.