TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -in-Appeal dated 4-7-1984, now the subject-matter of an appeal before us, was received in the applicants office on 19-11-1984; (b) the applicant had authorised the Assistant Collector Central Excise Division III, Ghaziabad, to file the instant appeal on 16-2-1985; (c) 17-2-1985 was a Sunday; (d) the authorisation was, for a fact, received by the Assistant Collector, Ghaziabad, on 19-2-1985 (The Receipt Register from the Asstt. Collector s office produced at our instance). That was the last day for filing the appeal itself; (e) The appeal was actually filed on 28-3-1985 in the office of the Tribunal; (f) There was, therefore, a delay of nearly 36 days in filing the appeal after the expiry of the limitation on 19-2-1985; (g) Betw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be such that there was no time to post the appeal even. 4. Relying on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in 1983 ECR 1556 [State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bahadur Singh Others} and the Tribunal s decision in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 529 [Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Godrej Soap Ltd.], it was contended for the applicant that public interest must be considered in condoning the delay. A departmental authority may delay for oblique motives and the public interest may suffer if such cause is thrown out merely on the ground of some delay which may be explainable. 5(a). In the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in 1983 ECR 1556,- (i) a Writ Petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the decision of a quasi-judicial authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as due to the necessity of seeking a second opinion from the Chief Chemist in view of the Tribunal s earlier decision on the issues arising in the instant appeal; (c) the aforesaid decisions are clearly on their own facts. While the Hon ble Supreme Court had deprecated the dismissal of a Writ Petition on the ground of bar of limitation when, in fact, no limitation at all was prescribed, and the delay, if any, was convincingly accounted for in the decision of the Tribunal the delay is explainable . The aforesaid decisions have in the circumstances, no applicability to the facts of this case when-even on the face of it, the applicant has offered no explanation for the period between 16-3-1985 and 28-3-1985. 6. On the contrary, it is axi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d followed in- (a) 1985 (2) E.L.T. 362 [Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd.]; (b) 1985 (21) E.L.T. 709 [Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. East Coast Paper Products - by the identical Bench as in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 529 relied upon for the applicant]; (c) 1985 (22) E.L.T. 590 [Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Calcutta Hardware Stores]. In 1985 (6) ETR 3 [Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Shillong v. Raidans Tea and Samdang Tea Estates and Others] as well, the aforesaid principles were all adverted to. That was, however, a case where on the facts, it was held that the delay, if any, in filing supplementary appeals could be condoned when, for a fact, one consolidated appeal against a plurality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
