S.D. Jha, Vice-President

1. This order will dispose of the application by appellant-Collector of Central Excises, Bombay for condoning delay in presenting appeal to the Tribunal.

2. According to the particulars given in the Memo of Appeal, the impugned order was communicated to the appellant on 25.3.1986. The appeal should have been filed to the Tribunal by 24.6.1986. The Memo of appeal dated 25.3.1987 was received in the Tribunal on 30.3.1987. The appeal is thus barred by limitation stipulated under Sub-section (3) of Section 35-B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by 9 months and 6 days. Excluding the postal delay of 5 days between 25.3.1987 to 30.3.1987, it is barred by limitation by 9 months.

3. In the application for condonation of delay, which is supported by an affidavit sworn by Shri V.R. Gangurd, Deputy Collector of Central Excise Bombay-III, the officer authorised by the Collector to present appeal, it is submitted that the decision in the impugned order followed the ratio of Cegat decision in Bakelite Hylam, Hyderabad. It was decided on 23.6.1986 not to file appeal against the Order-in-Appeal but from subsequent references received by Bombay-Ill Collectorate from other Collectorates, it appears different directions were being followed as to classification of laminated sheets in different Collectorates. This necessitated a meticulous study of the issue with reference to subject order-in-appeal and detailed information from Divisional Assistant Collectors of the Collectorate was called for. On 18.9.1980 factual decision with regard to classification of the product in respect of jurisdictions was called for. During the course of fresh examination of the issue, Deputy Collector (Technical) of the Collectorate visited the respondents' unit situated at Kolshet Road, Thane on 14.10.1986 and did physical verification. He found that there were sufficient grounds on the merits of the classification justifying filing an appeal against the impugned order. It was also found that substantial amount was involved in the consequential relief in the order-in-appeal. Besides, the order would have recurring effect causing further loss of revenue as the respondent was bent upon taking benefit of the order-in-appeal in respect of future clearances. It is also urged that the order-in-appeal would have far reaching ramifications throughout the country adversely affecting the Department's interests. The application submits that delay is not wilful or mala fide and should be condoned.

4. At the hearing of the application, Smt. Chander reiterated the grounds urged in the Application for Condonation of delay and relied on a very recent decision of Supreme Court parties Collector, Land Acquisition Anuntnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others MANU/SC/0460/1987.

5. Opposing Smt. Chander's contention, Shri K. Natarajan, Executive Vice-President of the respondent, submitted that the delay was not at all properly explained. He referred to a decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Bakelite Hylam v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in (1985 ECR 2334) and submitted that in view of this decision, it was not at all necessary for the appellant- Collector to have gone for the excessive enquiry which he claims to have made because there was a decision on the point and the decision would show that all necessary enquiries on the point had been made, if not by his Collectorate, by other Collectorates. It was also submitted that it was not understandable why in respect of respondent's case, issue relating to other Collectorates would be tagged. If in other Collectorates, there was any decision adverse to Revenue, it was open to Revenue to come up in an appeal against that decision and that could not be made an excuse for praying for condonation of delay in the present appeal.

6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties. It is true that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Kati