Harish Chander, Member (J)

1. Collector of Customs, Calcutta has filed the above captioned appeals being aggrieved on order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta by order No. 1538-1540/89, dated 28-9-1989. The said appeals were presented in the Calcutta registry on the 8th day of May, 1990. The appeals so filed in the Calcutta registry were transferred to Delhi registry. Simultaneously, the stay applications and applications for condonation of delay were also filed. In column number 3 of the appeal memo in form No. CA-3, the date of communication has been mentioned as 27-11-1989. Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned JDR who has appeared on behalf of the applicants pleaded that the applicants are prevented by sufficient cause for late filing of the appeals. Therefore, the delay for filing of the appeals may be condoned. He pleaded that there is a delay of 69 days in the filing of the above captioned appeals and the applicants had been vigilant altogether in the filing of the appeal. In support of his arguments, he has referred to time chart which is in Annexure C alongwith the application for condonation of delay. Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned JDR pleaded that before the appeals could be filed, the applicants had to apply his mind whether the appeals are to be filed or not and prima facie merits of the case had to be looked into. He pleaded that there was Collectors' Conference on 7th and 8th March, 1990 and the applicant decided to file the appeal after discussions on the subject in the Collectors' Conference. He pleaded that the Bombay High Court in the case of Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in MANU/MH/0109/1989 : 1989 (44) ELT 420 (Bom.) is in favour of the applicant and accordingly the applicant decided to file the appeals. He pleaded that a simple look at the time chart shows that on 19th February, 1990 which is well before the expiry of the limitation, the file was sent to the Assistant Collector (Tariff Cell) and after that there was movement of file from one office to the other for the filing of the appeals and there is no negligence on the part of the applicant and bona fide of the applicant should not be doubted. In support of his arguments, he has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. MST. Katiji and Others reported in MANU/SC/0460/1987 : 1987 (28) ELT 185. Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned JDR pleaded that the amount involved is Rs. 7,98,431/- and delay in the filing of the appeal may be condoned.

2. Shri N.C. Sogani, learned Consultant who has appeared on behalf of the respondents pleaded that there was negligence on the part of the applicant in the filing of the appeals. He has referred to the date sheet chart filed by the applicant which is necessary for the condonation of delay and pleaded that from serial No. 11 of the time chart after the conveyance of Collector's decision on 12-3-1990, the applicants have taken long time in the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. He referred to the case of Union of India and Others v. M/s. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. and Anr. reported in 1988 (38) ELT 739 (SC) = 1988 (19) ECR 569 (S.C.). Shri Sogani pleaded that the appeals are hit by limitation and that the applicant has not been able to establish sufficient cause and Tribunal should not exercise its decision in condoning the delay.

3. Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned JDR again pleaded for condonation of delay.

4. We have heard both sides and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts are not disputed. The impugned common order passed by the Collector of Customs was served on 27-11-1989 and the receipt of the appeals in this Tribunal is dated 8-5-1990. Thus there is a delay of 69 days. The applicant has filed an application for condonation of delay. The relevant extract from the application for condonation of delay is re-produced below :-

"Your applicant above named most respectfully swearth :-.

That the order in a