1989 (7) TMI 200

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of appeal, the date of communication has been mentioned as 3rd November, 1988. Thereafter, the applicants had presented an application for condonation of delay duly supported with an affidavit and medical certificate in original. Thereafter, another affidavit dated 7th July, 1989 sworn before an Oath Commissioner was also filed. The date of communication in column No. 3 of the appeal memo has been mentioned as 3rd November, 1988. Thus the appeal is hit by limitation and there is a delay of 59 days. 2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, the learned advocate, has reiterated the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay and the subsequent affidavit. Shri Agarwal, the learned advocate, stated that the appellants' Director Shri Sunil ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Registry on 4th April, 1989. There is a delay of 59 days. In terms of provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, an appeal has to be filed within three months from the date of the receipt of the order. The appellant has duly supported his plea with an affidavit duly sworn before the Notary Public. The affidavit dated 7-7-1989 is reproduced below : "Affidavit of Shri Sunil Mangia son of Dr. R.C. Mangia aged 35 years resident of B-9, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi. I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under :- 1. That the Appeal against the said order in original dated 28-10-1988 before the Hon'ble Tribunal was required to be filed on or before 3-2-1989. 2. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....       Sd/- Sunil Mangla Dated: 7-7-1989  DEPONENT" A simple perusal of the affidavit shows that the applicant was sick. He recovered in the last week of March, 1989 and filed the appeal on 4th April, 1989. It is a settled law that the appellant is not expected to explain the delay till the last date of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal and others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has held that the appellant is not expected to explain his conduct in the late filing of the appeal till the last date of limitation and after expiry of the limitation the appellant has to explain each and every day's delay. In the matter before us, the appellant w....