1991 (8) TMI 203

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 in the matter of appeals to Appellate Tribunal; (b) whether filing of an appeal before a wrong forum under a mistaken belief is a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay; (c) whether the period during which the appeal entertained by the wrong forum and remaining pending with them is excludible for the purpose of limitation. 2. The facts relevant to the consideration of the matter are that the applicants had filed an appeal to the Tribunal under Section 35B of the Act against the order dated 3rd January, 1989 of the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. This appeal was received in the Tribunal on 14th November, 1990 along with an application for condonation of delay Numbered E/COD/795/90-NRB) in w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... plea of mistaken belief is bona fide. Keeping this in mind, I reject the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismiss the appeal." 4. Arguing on the Reference Application, Shri S.L. Sethi, the learned Counsel submitted that the general principles for condonation of delay declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others [1987 (28) E.L.T. 185] should have been followed in the present case too. He also cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta [1987 (31) E.L.T. 860]. He stated that in the circumstances of this case, there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal and on the ....