Harish Chander, Member (J)

1. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - III had filed an appeal being aggrieved from order-in-appeal No. HN-30/B. III-13/86 (File No. V-2 (15A) 579/86) passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. In Column No. 3 of the memo of appeal the date of communication has been mentioned as 17th Sept., 1987. The appeal was supported with an application for condonation of delay and an affidavit sworn before a Notary Public. The matter had come up for hearing before the Tribunal on 19th July, 88 and the learned S.D.R. had made a request for adjournment on the ground that he wanted to substantiate his grounds for condonation of delay. In the interests of justice an adjournment was granted even though it was opposed by the other party. The matter had come up for hearing today. The learned J.D.R. stated that he has not received any information from the Collector in this regard in spite of the fact that a telex was sent on 19th July, 1988. He again requested for adjournment. Shri Ravinder Narain opposed the request for adjournment and in support of his arguments he referred to a judgment in the case of Union of India v. Visveswaraya Iron Steel Ltd. reported in MANU/SC/0133/1986 : 1987(32) ELT 458 where the Court had observed that "But we do not see why any further time should be granted to the petitioners to file a supplemental affidavit. After hearing both the sides we do not find any justification in the grant of adjournment and as such we proceed to decide the same on merits."

2. Shri R.P. Sharma has reiterated the contentions made application for condonation of delay. He has pleaded that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. In support of his arguments he has referred to the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji Bibi reported in MANU/SC/0460/1987 : 1987(28) ELT 185 where the Supreme Court had held that the appellant Is not to explain each and every day's delay. He has pleaded for the condonation of delay.

3. Shri Ravinder Narain has opposed the condonation of delay and has stated that the appeal was filed on 13.1.1988 and the order was communicated on 17.9.1987. Thus there Is a delay of 29 days. In support of his arguments he has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Tata Yodogawa Limited and Anr. In Special Leave Petition Nos. 3772-73 of 1987. He has also cited another judgment of the Tribunal In the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Caprihans India Limited reported In 1988 (33) ELT 110 (paras 9 10). He has stated that judgment cited by the learned S.D.R. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katijl Bibi was duly discussed in this Tribunal's decision and the same was not followed. Shri Ravinder Narain in support of his arguments has also referred to an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal v. Rewa Coal Field reported in AIR 1962(SC) 361. Shri Ravinder Narain has argued that in view of the judgments cited by him the application for condonation of delay should be rejected as the applicant has not been able to prove that he was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. In Mst. Katiji Bibi's case the observation of the Supreme Court was that "Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay?" The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case had condoned the delay after being satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause.

4. We have heard both the sides and have gone though the facts and circumstances of the case. The application for condonation of delay filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay is reproduced below:-

"The delay caused in filing the appeal is actually for 29 days i.e. from 16.12.1987 to 13.1.1988 and including the date of filing the