TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal the date of communication has been mentioned as 14th May 1988. In terms of provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the appeal has to be presented within three months from the date of the communication of the order, and as such the last date of the filing of the appeal was 14th day of August, 1988. Thus there is a delay of 58 days. Shri R.K. Virmani, the learned Advocate who has appeared on behalf of the applicant has reiterated the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay. Shri Virmani, the learned Advocate has pleaded that earlier the papers were handled by Shri S. Bhattacharjee, Chief General Manager, who has left the organisation suddenly and it resulted into the del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. He has laid special emphasis on Para No. 7 8 of the application for condonation of delay. He has stated that Shri S. Bhattacharjee, Chief General Manager and his successor Shri N. Sen were looking after the Central Excise affairs and there were other employees also. He has pleaded for rejection of the application for condonation of delay. In support of his argument he has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Limited reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 (S.C.). He has also referred to a judgment of the East Regional Bench in the case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 599 (Tribunal) where the Tribunal had held that m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oalfields Limited reported in 1962 AIR 361 (S.C.) had held that after expiry of the limitation the applicant has to explain each and every day s delay. In para No. 17 of the application for condonation of delay the applicant had stated the reasons datewise data-chart. The same is reproduced below :- 14-5-1988 Receipt of the impugned order-in-original passed by the Collector in the Company s office at Kalyani. 14-5-1988 to 21-9-1988 Due to inaction on the part of Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Chief General Manager who ultimately left the Company s service without making over charge the order-in-original remained unattended to and did not come to the notice of the higher authorities of the appellant company. 21-9-1988 The order-in-origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that from 14th May, 1988 to 21st September, 1988 the papers remained unattended and did not come to the notice of the higher authorities of the applicant company. It is a settled proposition in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. that till the last date of limitation, the applicant is not to explain his conduct. In the matter before us the impugned order was served on 14th May, 1988 and the last date for the filing of the appeal was 14th August and as such we are not concerned with the activity of the applicant till 14th August, 1988. From 14th August, 1988 to 21st September, 1988 there is negligence on the part of the applicant. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
