TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (10) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h May, 1982. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for condonation of delay which was registered as COD/70-90-AB received on 20th March, 1990. Thereafter, another supplementary application for condonation of delay was filed which was registered as E/COD/159/90-A. 2. Shri M.S. Arora, the learned JDR who has appeared on behalf of the appellant, pleaded that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. Shri Arora pleaded that the order-in-appeal was dated 15th May, 1982 and it was to be reviewed under the provisions of erstwhile Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Shri Arora reiterated the contentions made in the supplementary application for condonation of delay. He argued th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal on 3rd January, 1982 within three months from the date of the constitution of the Tribunal. Shri Arora argued that the judgment in the case of Union Carbide Ltd. clearly shows that even the Tribunal was in doubt as to the correct legal position and as such, there was sufficient cause on the part of the appellant. He has also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji and others reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.) and has laid special emphasis on para No. 3 where the Supreme Court had condoned the delay with the remarks that the appellant is not to explain each and every day's, hour or minute's delay and delay of four days was condoned. He has also referred to a j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 The Supreme Court confirmed the order reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. (Tribunal) in the case of Collector of Customs v. Union Carbide (I) Ltd. (iv) Order No. 18/87-B1 dated 12th January, 1987 in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. SAIL (v) 1990 (27) ECR 346 Collector of Central Excise & Customs v. Papyrus Papers Ltd. Shri Sridharan argued that there is no explanation given by the appellant from 29th November to 17th December, 1982. The change in forum was well known to the revenue authorities. He has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 (S.C.). He has pleaded for rejection of the application for condonation of delay. 4. In reply, Shri M.S.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in its dis.c.retion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the s.c.ope of the enquiry while exercising the dis.c.retionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. It cannot justify an enquiry as to why the party was sitting idle during all the time available to it. In this connection we may point out that considerations of bona fides or due diligence are always material and relevant when the Court is dealing with applications made under S.14 of the Limitation Act. In dealing with suc....