PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS LTD Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS stay application along with appeal itself is taken up for hearing as the issue lies in a short compass by granting waiver of pre deposit.

(2.) LD . Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the appellants without condoning the delay of one day in filing the appeal.

(3.) WE have heard both the sides in the matter. The law of limitation is very clear that the appellants are required to explain the delay in filing the appeal. There should be no laches or negligence and if the same is explained, the authorities are bound to accept the explanation and condone the delay. In the present case, the delay is only one day and this one day's delay was due to unforeseen circumstances and it was not due to any laches or negligence but on the understanding that the appeal was being filed within time and there was an error in calculating the days available for filing the appeal. It is explained that it is due (to) human error and not due to any laches or negligence. Similar situation did arise before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. as wherein Supreme Court has laid down the salient features of law of condonation and has expressed its anguish in the term that the message emanating from the Apex Court "does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy". In the present case, this observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court applies in all force and we are sure that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) will take note of the anguish expressed by the Apex Court and not dismiss the appeal where there is an explanation for a single day. For the purpose of convenience, we are extracting the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this Judgment for the enlightenment of the Commissioner, with due respect.