TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stant Collector of Customs, Tribunal Coordination Unit, Bombay, who has been authorised by the Collector to file the appeal and the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, has stated in this application that the time limit to file the appeal expired on 25.6.1985 and that the Collector had passed the orders for filing the appeal on that date but due to paucity of staff and also for the reason that the office machine for photo-copying was out of order since 7.6.1985, the appeal could not be filed in time. He has pleaded that if Collector (Appeals) order was allowed to stand being not legal and proper order, it will have adverse effect on revenue and has requested for condonation of delay. The matter came up for hearing earl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived by the adjudicating authority on 11.4.1985 and the papers were processed thereafter. The date chart of the movement of file thereafter has been given in this affidavit. The same for convenience of reference is reproduced as under : adjudicating Receipt of the Appellate Order by authority 11-4-1985 scrutiny and study of File sent to concerned Group for Appellate Order 26-4-1985 Group onFile received in the concerned dealing 24-6-1985 Proposal for filing the appeal put up to Collector on 24-6-1985 filing of the Collector approves and orders for appeal 24-6-1985 aration of and filingFile received back in T.C.U. for prep of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time for filing the appeal expired on 25.6.1985. They have further stated that even in the affidavit filed by the appellant, the averment that matter was referred to the Group for examining the matter for filing the appeal was not correct inasmuch as this issue had already been examined in the Customs House earlier and the Collector had even filed appeal in a similar matter earlier. They have further pleaded that misplacement of papers or negligence is not sufficient cause as held by the Tribunal in their judgment : 1987 (11) ECR 809 (CEGAT SB-C) = 1987 (29) E.L.T. 300 (Tribunal) Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/s. Parker Corporation and that this cannot be taken as constituting sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The relevant e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as paucity of staff and failure of photo-copying equipment in the office. It was only later that a legal plea was taken that the Collector had not received the copy of the Appellate Order, not having been served on him, and that there was no delay in filing the appeal It is seen from the date chart filed that the file had been sent to the concerned Unit for scrutiny and study of Appellate Order, and it was after a lapse of about two months the same was received from this Unit and Collector passed necessary orders for filing the appeal on 24.6.1985. 6. The respondents cited the order of this Tribunal in which plea taken by the Appellant Collector that the copy of the order had not been received by him was taken note of by the Bench and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this decision we hold that in this case time for filing the appeal has to be reckoned with reference to the date of the receipt of the order as set out by the Appellant Collector in his Memorandum of Appeal at Serial No. 3 of the CA-3 Form i.e., 25.3.1985. In view of the instruction issued by the Collector, it is very clear that when the appeal was filed, the Collector was clear in his mind that the order had been served on him by virtue of the fact that it had been received by the Assistant Collector, TCU on 25.3.1985. We observe that the reason given by Collector for delay in filing the appeal is because of paucity of staff and absence of photo-copying machine. No facts have been placed before us as to whether there was a sudden shortage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the context of the filing of the appeal. Least we can say is that an attempt has been made to hold back information. From the above, we are constrained to observe that the Department has not come out clean before us with their reasons for delay in filing the appeal and they have been prevaricating in their pleas for condonation of delay. The learned Departmental Representative cited judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another v. MST Katiji and Others : 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.). The Hon ble Supreme Court have laid down broad guidelines to be followed by the lower courts in the matter of condonation of delay. Further the Hon ble Court after laying down these principles, have observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
