LAKSHMI BLEACHERS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for condonation of delay of 23 months and 4 days in filing the appeal on the ground that the impugned order was received on 10.1.2002.

(2.) Appearing on behalf of the applicants ld. Consultant Shri R. Balagopal submits that when the impugned Order -in -Appeal was received on 10.1.2002, they handed over all the connected papers to one Shri K. Narayanan, Advocate at Trichy with a request to do the needful for filing the appeal. He further submits since the appellants had also already executed vakalat in his favour they were under the bona fide faith and belief that the Advocate K. Narayanan would do not needful in the matter. He further submits that with great difficulty they located the family of the Advocate and asked for the copy of the appeal papers and connected documents. The advocate's wife was also very sickly women and it took some time for her to locate the paper and they were able to get back their file. On receipt and perusal of the file, it was noticed by them that the appeal was not filed. Ld. Consultant further submits that somebody in the trade took them to the present consultant to file the appeal. In the process there was a delay of 23 months and 4 days in filing the appeal. Ld. Consultant has also filed an affidavit from the appellant in support of the condonationa application and the death certificate from the Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Trjchy in respect of Shri K. Narayanan, Advocate. From the death certificate it could be seen that the said advocate Shri K. Naryanan died on 28.10.2003. Ld. Consultant pressed into service the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the matter of Bengal Rolling Mills Ltd. v. CEGAT wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that laches and negligence on the part of the Advocate or authorised agent is a sufficient ground and reason for condonation of delay. He also submit that in the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta the facts enunciated by them are similar and the delay should be condoned.

(3.) Appearing on behalf of the Revenue ld. SDR, smt. Bhagya Devi opposed the petition for condonation of delay on the ground that there is an abnormal delay of 23 months 4 days. She submits that the appeal was required to be filed on or before 10.4.2002 when the ld. Counsel Shri K. Narayanan was very much alive. He died only on 28.10.2003. That is to say after a period of one and half years and he could have filed the appeal during this period which he did not do and the applicants had also sufficient time to check from the advocate whether the appeal has been filed or not. In this connection ld. SDR also distinguished the facts stated in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the matter of Bengal Rolling Mills Ltd. (supra) wherein the delay was about 7 months only. Moreover, the appellants have not produced any proof that the appeal papers and connected documents were handed over to the advocate Shri K. Narayanan. She also put into service the decision rendered by the North Regional Bench, Delhi in the matter of Indian Creation Exports v. CC (ICD) TKD New Delhi wherein the Bench rejected the application for condonation of delay of 322 days and observed that no reason has been brought forward to show that they had checked up with the consultant whether the appeal has been filed within the time limit specified in the Act. When the Act specifically provides three months for filing the appeal, the said period has to be adhered to. It has also been observed by the Tribunal that if the condonation of delay application on this ground is accepted, every applicant in the case of delay can put the blame on to his Consultant/Advocate. It was in this background the Tribunal held no sufficient reasons have been advanced by the applicants to justify the delay in filing the appeal. Ld. SDR submits that there is abnormal delay of almost 694 days (23 months and 4 days). She vehemently argued that there is no justification for condoning the delay and the same should be rejected.