ORDER
G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. This is an application praying the Tribunal to excuse the delay of 38 days in filing this Appeal. The impugned order was passed on 25-2-1997. On 1-3-1997 the Appellant received the Order-in-Appeal. They ought to have filed the appeal before the Tribunal on or before 1-6-1997. The appeal has been filed on 9-7-1997. The reasons for delay in filing the appeal is that the Applicant company is run by 2 Managing Directors and they have to take a joint decisions as to the filing of an appeal or not in respect of the legal proceedings in which the decision may go against them. In this case it would appear that the 2 Managing Directors were away from March, 1997 to June, 1997. Only for a few days they were in India. This has been fully reflected in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Application for excusing the delay. The ld. Counsel, Shri Shroff, on behalf of the Company pleads before me, that in matters of this nature the Tribunal should be conscious of the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji – AIR 1987 SC 1353 wherein it has held that substantial justice and technical considerations one pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay. Mr. Shroff invited my attention to paragraph 5 of the guidelines where it has been held that there is no presumption that the delay has any mala fides. He has specifically emphasised that the litigant would not stand benefited by resorting to delay. Shri Talajia on behalf of the Department countered the arguments of Shri Shroff by saying that, in most of the days between March to June both the Managing Directors were together. They could have taken a decision in time so that they could have been avoided the delay in filing the appeal.
2. I have considered the rival submissions and the facts of the case. During the case of the arguments my attention was invited to the judgment of the Tribunal decided in the case of C.C.E., Hyderabad v. Procter & Gamble (India) Ltd. -1995 (79) E.L.T. 429. The observations of ld. Member as contained in page 435 of the report was also looked into by me. When I looked into the same I am of the view that the said decision of the Procter & Gamble (India) Ltd. had been taken in view of the pendency of the appeal pending before the Tribunal filed by the Procter & Gamble (India) Ltd. as reflected in the observations at page 437. That cannot be a decision relating to the facts of the instant case. However, I would find that strictly speaking, the Appellant need not explain to the Tribunal as to the happening taken place in the company within 90 days of the impugned order. They have to explain the delay only from the expiry of 90 days onwards. I have seen the application arid I am of the view that most of the time the Managing Directors were away (even during the 90 days). It will be difficult sometime in the working of the organisation to meet and discuss and take a decision to file any appeal. It is easy for anybody to comment that the firm being a small one they could have taken a decision as to filing of an appeal especially as the amount involved is nearly Rs. 3 lakhs. But it is easily said than following the same. In running of a business sometime the litigation matters may be given last priority than to run the business, especially in respect of the day to day affairs. I would therefore feel in the interest of justice, in this case there is sufficient cause for the Appellant in not filing an appeal in time. I excuse the delay in filing the appeal and the application for the same is allowed. The delay is condoned.