1999 (1) TMI 41 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for condoning delay in filing appeal against orders of the second respondent.
2. Exercise of discretionary power by the first respondent in rejecting the application.
3. Consideration of sufficient cause for delay under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitions challenged the order of the first respondent dismissing the application for condoning the delay in filing appeals against the orders of the second respondent. The petitioner cited reasons for the delay, including the closure of the unit due to family problems faced by the Managing Director. The appeals were filed with delays ranging from 81 to 91 days after receiving the orders. The first respondent dismissed the applications, stating that the factory had minimal staff during the lockout period and that the sickness and family problems were not adequately explained.

2. The main issue was whether the first respondent judiciously exercised discretionary power in rejecting the application for condoning the delay. The petitioner argued that technical grounds were used for rejection, emphasizing the impact of the lockout on administrative work and the personal hardships faced by the Managing Director. The first respondent contended that the explanations provided were insufficient, especially regarding sickness, and that the staff should have promptly handed over the postal covers during the lockout period.

3. Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, allows for a three-month appeal period, extendable by another three months for sufficient cause. The appeals were filed within the extended period, but not within the initial three months. The court considered the lockout period, family problems, and sickness of the Managing Director as valid reasons for the delay. Citing a Supreme Court ruling on the liberal interpretation of limitation provisions, the court concluded that the petitioner should be given an opportunity by condoning the delay, subject to paying a cost of Rs. 1,000 in each writ petition within three weeks. Failure to pay would confirm the first respondent's order. The impugned proceedings were set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed with conditions.