TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (7) TMI 163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Registry on 15-1-1992. 2.List of dates and events given by the applicants during the course of the hearing on 12-7-1994 is as follows :- Sl. No. Date Event 1. 27-2-1991 Order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. 2. 8-3-1991 Order received by the appellants. 3. 9-5-1991 The appellants filed in the office of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. The appeal was titled as `Before the Collector (Appeals), Central Board of Excise & Customs, Sector-17, Chandigarh. The appeal contained 18 pages. Memo of appeal from page 18-10. 30-9-1985 Copy of Gazette of India taking over Ply Board Industries Limited, Pampore. Typed copy of Order-in-Original (Page 8-4). Hand-written copies of balance-s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-12-1991 Appellant's letter No. PBI/SLS/91/1203-04/11 addressed to Assistant Registrar, CEGAT sent by Regd. Post enclosing documents. 14. Date of receipt of above documents by the Registry of CEGAT. 15. 19-11-1993 Appellants filed an application alongwith an affidavit in support of condonation of delay application numbered as E/Misc/1202/ 93-D containing 6 pages. 16. 12-4-1994 Appellants filed a date chart duly signed by the Supdt. of Police, City South, Srinagar indicating the details of disturbances in the Valley. 17. 26-6-1994 Appellants filed a further affidavit explaining the re-filing of papers in New Delhi." 3. Shri Sridharan, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants submitted that there was neither neg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... required to be explained by the applicants from 17-6-1991 to 19-8-1991 since the appeal papers were presented on 20-8-1991. He contended that upto 20-8-1991 the applicants were pursuing remedy in a wrong forum but subsequent delay has been caused due to the fact that applicants' unit has been situated in remote corner and it is well known that entire Valley of Kashmir is seriously disturbed by reported militant activities coupled with hartals. He said that pursuing proceedings before the different authorities is a sufficient cause to condone delay referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Jaipur v. Instrumentation Ltd., Kota, reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 570 (Tri.) = 1990 (31) ECR 281 and in the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar whether mere letter was filed or it was filed alongwith the annexures as it is not supported by any evidence. Subsequent delay was also not explained properly with sufficient cause and, accordingly, the application is liable to be rejected. Filing of appeal in a casual and leisurely way and plea of wrong advice cannot be considered as sufficient cause since every day's delay is to be explained, and in support of his contention, he has referred to the following decisions :- (i) Atco Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, 1993 (64) E.L.T. 129 (Tribunal). (ii) Collector of Central Excise v. Rallis India Ltd., 1991 (53) E.L.T. 395 (Tribunal). (iii) Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Banco Aluminium & Gujarat Aluminium, Baroda, 198....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7-6-1991 is not clearly explained and cause is not supported by evidence to constitute sufficient cause to condone delay. We are of the view that mere letter filed by the applicants before the Assistant Registrar, CEGAT, is not an appeal in the eye of law and decision referred to by the applicants in the case of Orient Letho Press (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case since in that case the applicants have taken draft earlier to file appeal papers before the Tribunal and defect was rectified. This is not so in this case. Neither EA-3 form was filed in time nor they have taken any steps to show that they have taken draft to prove their bona fide. We are not convinced with the argument advanced by the applicants in this case tha....