TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (9) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been received in the Registry on 16.7.1985. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Tribunal Coordination Unit, Bombay, who has been authorised by the Collector to file the appeal and the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, has stated in this application that the time limit to file the appeal expired on 25.6.1985 and that the Collector had passed the orders for filing the appeal on that date but due to paucity of staff and also for the reason that the office machine for photo-copying was out of order since 7.6.1985, the appeal could not be filed in time. He has pleaded that if Collector (Appeals) order was allowed to stand being not legal and proper order, it will have adverse effect on revenue and has requested for co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded that the order of the Collector (Appeals) had been received by the adjudicating authority on 11.4.1985 and the papers were processed thereafter. The date chart of the movement of file thereafter has been given in this affidavit. The same for convenience of reference is reproduced as under : adjudicating "Receipt of the Appellate Order by authority 11-4-1985           scrutiny and study of File sent to concerned Group for   Appellate Order 26-4-1985 Group onFile received in the concerned dealing   24-6-1985 Proposal for filing the appeal put up to Collector on  24-6-1985 filing of the Collector approves and orders for   ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....receipt of order by the Appellant Collector for the purpose of limitation under Section 129A(3). They have pleaded it was on account of this that the Collector in his appeal has stated that said order was received on 25.3.1985 and the time for filing the appeal expired on 25.6.1985. They have further stated that even in the affidavit filed by the appellant, the averment that matter was referred to the Group for examining the matter for filing the appeal was not correct inasmuch as this issue had already been examined in the Customs House earlier and the Collector had even filed appeal in a similar matter earlier. They have further pleaded that misplacement of papers or negligence is not sufficient cause as held by the Tribunal in their judg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. We observe that in the appeal by the Collector, the date of receipt of-the order has been shown as 25.3.1985 and the reasons given for delay in filing the appeal in the application for condonation of delay filed along with the appeal, as paucity of staff and failure of photo-copying equipment in the office. It was only later that a legal plea was taken that the Collector had not received the copy of the Appellate Order, not having been served on him, and that there was no delay in filing the appeal It is seen from the date chart filed that the file had been sent to the concerned Unit for scrutiny and study of Appellate Order, and it was after a lapse of about two months the same was received from this Unit and Collector passed necessary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... receipt of the impugned order by the Assistant Collector, T.C.U. designated to receive the said order has been held in the order of the Tribunal cited as the date for the purpose of limitation for filing the appeal. Following the ratio of this decision we hold that in this case time for filing the appeal has to be reckoned with reference to the date of the receipt of the order as set out by the Appellant Collector in his Memorandum of Appeal at Serial No. 3 of the CA-3 Form i.e., 25.3.1985. In view of the instruction issued by the Collector, it is very clear that when the appeal was filed, the Collector was clear in his mind that the order had been served on him by virtue of the fact that it had been received by the Assistant Collector, TC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts. The Collector has chosen to remain silent as to what happened to the order which was stated to have been received on 25.3.1985 as set out in the appeal memorandum. Disposal action taken on the order copy received on 25.3.1985 is relevant in the context of the filing of the appeal. Least we can say is that an attempt has been made to hold back information. From the above, we are constrained to observe that the Department has not come out clean before us with their reasons for delay in filing the appeal and they have been prevaricating in their pleas for condonation of delay. The learned Departmental Representative cited judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another v. MST Katiji and Oth....