Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, V.K. Agrawal, JJ.
U.P. State Electricity Board -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad -Respondent
Final Order No. 211/2000-B Appeal No. E/960/98-B, 211 of 2000, 960 of 1998
Decided On : 07-02-2000
Y.P. Sethi,R.K. Sharma
Per Jyoti Balasundaram :
At the outset the learned D.R. raises a preliminary objection to hearing of the appeal pointing out that there is a delay of about 9 months in preferring the above appeal. The learned counsel brings to the notice of the Bench that an application for condonation of delay has been filed. Hence, we heard both sides on the application of condonation.
2. The appellants states that the impugned order is an ex-parte order and they had applied for recall of the impugned order, to the Commissioner (Appeals) and they were waiting for the ex-parte order to be recalled, and hence, did not file the appeal before the Tribunal within the statutory period of limitation. They submit that the delay in prefering the appeal was due only to the above circumstances and pray for condonation since the delay was not deliberate or intentional. The pray was vehemently opposed by the learned SDR who submits that the explanation is not sufficient for condoning the delay, particularly when the application for recall accompanied by an affidavit have not been shown to have filed in the Commissioner (Appeals) nor any documents showing the receipt of application in the Commissionerate.
3. We have considered the rival submissions. The filing of an application for recall, if any, is no ground for not filing the appeal within the statutory period of limitation. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Chandramani, reported in 1996 (3) SCC 132 cited by the learned counsel for the appellants does not help them since we are not satisfied that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the present appeal in the Tribunal. We, therefore, decline to condone the delay and reject the COD application. As a result the appeal is dismissed as time barred.
