COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. CEGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records of the first respondent dated 11 -8 -2000 passed in Final Order No. 1103 of 2000, Miscellaneous Order No. 373 of 2000 and Stay Order No. 717/2000 and quash the same and forbear the second Respondent from implementing the order dated 1 -9 -1999 passed in Appeal No. 187 of 1999 (M -III) pending disposal of the above writ petition.

(2.) THE writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal nonsuiting the petitioner for the relief of condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the first respondent against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise made in Appeal No. 187/99 (M -III). In the affidavit filed along with the application, the petitioner herein has not stated any reason whatsoever for filing the appeal with the delay of 100 days.

(3.) AS seen from the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has discussed several earlier case laws and given a finding to the effect that even after taking the decision by the Board on 10 -2 -2000 to file an appeal, the appeal was filed on 30 -5 -2000 and hence the delay of 100 days and the delay has not been explained by sufficient reasons. Since there is no reason having been substantiated the Revenue cannot expect the Tribunal condone the delay in a routine manner. Even before this Court also the petitioner has not stated as to what is the cause for the delay in filing the appeal after 100 days, after the period prescribed for filing an appeal was over. "Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of Revenue, the Court is always lenient in condoning the delay. There cannot be any exception to the procedure followed by this Court as well as the Supreme Court in respect of the fiscal matters. But that does not mean that the Revenue need not say any reason at all for the delay. Admittedly in this cae no reason whatsoever has been stated for the delay. If minimum pain or effort has been taken by the authorities some reason would have been stated for the delay. The condonation power granted to the Tribunal is not merely a ritual or mere formality or not a rule as and when any application is filed by the Department the delay has to be condoned. But on the contrary, the power has been vested with the Tribunal only on being satisfied with the reasonable cause shown for the delay, such delay could be condoned. In the absence of any sufficient cause, the Tribunal cannot by itself invent reason and grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner. Hence I do no find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal in non -suiting the petitioner for the relief of condonation of delay. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.