TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (10) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was issued on 11-2-1992 and the same was received by the appellants on 18-2-1992. He pleaded that there is a delay of one month and four days in filing the appeal. He also argued that the appeal was despatched by post, and for computing the period of limitation the time taken by the postal authorities should be deemed to be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. He pleaded that the appellants had all along been very vigilant and in fact on a similar importation, when the matter had come up for hearing before the Tribunal, it was decided in favour of the appellants, but the lower authorities have not implemented the order and as such the appellants have filed a Miscellaneous application which was finally disposed of by the Tribunal on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(60) E.L.T. 263 (Tribunal). Shri Gujral has also pleaded that the definition of Additional Collector was amended with effect from 14-5-1992 where it has been provided that Additional Collector is not a Collector for purposes of Appeal and the appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by Additional Collector shall lie to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and not to CEGAT. Shri Gujral has pleaded for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Shri Dhar, the learned JDR, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, pleaded that the appellants were not prevented by sufficient cause in late filing of the appeal. He has pleaded that there was negligence on the part of the appellants in not filing the appeal within the stipulate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag, reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.). He had also pleaded that wrong advice given by the advocate is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay, and in support he has cited the decision in the case of Puranmal Bajoria reported in AIR 1980 Patna 143. We have gone through the application for condonation of delay and also the records. The appellants' plea of wrong legal advice is not acceptable. The order was passed by the Additional Collector and was issued before the amendment of the provisions and it should not be deemed that this amendment has changed the forum. There is no affidavit from the advocate to the effect that he had given advice to the appellants and as such the plea of wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to consider the effect of the combined provisions of Sections 5 and 14. Therefore, in our opinion, considerations which have been expressly made material and relevant by the provisions of Section 14 cannot to the same extent and in the same manner be invoked in dealing with applications which fall to be decided only under Section 5 without reference to Section 14. In the present case there is no difficulty in holding that the discretion should be exercised in favour of the appellant because apart from the general criticism made against the appellant's lack of diligence during the period of limitation no other fact had been adduced against it. Indeed, as we have already pointed out, the learned Judicial Commissioner rejected the appellant's ....