ORDER
Harish Chander, Vice-President
1. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad had filed the above captioned appeals being aggrieved from a common Order-in-Appeal No. 335 to 353/90/Ahd/Collr(A)/CE(l36 to 154/90/Ahd/CE), dated 31-7-1990 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The said appeals were presented in the Registry alongwith applications for condonation of delay on 4-2-1991. In column No. 3 of the appeal memo the date of communication has been mentioned as 17-9-1990. In terms of provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, an appeal has to be filed within 3 months from the date of communication of the order on the appellants. Thus the last date for the filing of the appeal was on or before the 17-12-1990. Thus there is a delay of 48 days. Shri M. S. Arora, learned JDR has appeared on behalf of the applicants. He has pleaded that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in late filing of the appeals. He has argued that there were riots in Ahmedabad and as such the appeals could not be filed within the stipulated period and the office of the Collector was also closed. In support of the same, he has referred to a certificate issued by Police Department to the effect that there were disturbances from 13-12-1990 to 16-12-1990 and from 18-12-1990 to 23-12-1990 and the offices of the Collector were closed. Shri Arora, learned JDR pleaded that the Collector was pre-occupied with the important revenue matters and other important meetings and as such the appeals could not be filed. In any case, he stated that there is no negligence on the part of the Revenue. The appeals were filed at the earliest possible. In support of his arguments, he referred to the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bahadur Singh and Ors., reported in 1983 ECR 1556D and also referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land and Acquisition v. MST. Katiji and Ors., reported in 1987 (28) ELT 185. Shri Arora stated that since there is bona fide on the part of the appellants, the delay in the filing of the appeal may be condoned and disturbances in the Ahmedabad were sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeals.
2. Shri J. S. Aggarwal, learned Advocate who has appeared on behalf of the respondent stated that there was negligence on the part of the appellants. The Collector has given a stereo type reason in the application for condonation of delay and in support of his argument, he has referred to a judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. Hindustan Motors Ltd., reported in 1991 (51) ELT 400 where the Tribunal had taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter. Shri J. S. Aggarwal, learned Advocate stated that it is settled law that after the expiry of the limitation the appellant has to explain each and every day’s delay. He fairly stated that upto the last date of the limitation the appellant is not to explain delay and upto 23-12-1990 the offices of the Collector were closed and that can be sufficient ground upto that date or maximum 1 week should have been considered for the purpose of the filing of the appeals in respect of drafting etc. Shri J. S. Aggarwal stated that in the matter before the Tribunal there is a delay of 48 days and there is no justification for grant of condonation of delay in view of the decision cited by him in the case of Collector of Customs v. Hindustan Motors Ltd., reported in 1991 (51) ELT 400. He argued that the Tribunal had considered at length on all aspects of the case law and the subject of the matter, and had come to the conclusion and had rejected the prayer of the appellants for condonation of delay. He pleaded that there is no justification for condonation of delay and applications for condonation of delay should be rejected and appeals may also be dismissed.
3. We have heard both sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. For the proper appreciation of the correct position the reasons given in para 10 of the applications for condonation of delay are reproduced below :-
“The Order-in-Appeal No. 335 to 353/90/Ahd/Collr(A)/CE (136 to 154/90/Ahd/CE) dated 31-7-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad is still not received by this office. However, the same was received by Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad on 17-9-1990. The Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad was being occupied with the important revenue matter with other important meeting. The delay due to non-receipt of records in the time taken for scrutiny and examination of the records and the same being old and requires proper scrutiny. Further this office is situated in the Ahmedabad city area. There was a communal riots in the city area and therefore, curfew was imposed in the city. This office was also covered under curfew and therefore offico was remained closed upto 23-12-1990. The authorisation of the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad is issued on 13-12-1990 but the same is received by this office on 17-12-1990, due to above reason. In this connection, regarding documentary evidence, I submit herewith a certificate issued by Police Inspector, Karanj Police Station, Ahmedabad City.”
We have also looked into the certificate issued by Police Inspector. The certificate is also reproduced below :-
“This is to certify that Nirmal Building in which the Central Excise offices are situated are just opposite to our Police Chowky. This office area was under curfew and communal disturbances during 13-12-1990 to 16-12-1990 and 18-12-1990 to 23-12-1990.
Sd/- L.H. Desai”
A simple perusal of the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay as well as the certificate clearly shows that delay in filing the appeals should have been condoned only upto 23-12-1990 and a reasonable time for the filing of the appeals. In the matter before us, there is a delay of 48 days, for the sake of convenience, taking the overall view, we are of the view that it would have been reasonable to give approximately one week for the filing of the appeals, keeping in view the disturbances in Ahmedabad but with this observation, we are making it very clear that this observation will not be applicable in general, and all the appellants may not start claiming grace of one week for the filing of the appeal. The judgments cited by the learned JDR do not help him. This Bench had passed a very detailed order in the case of Collector of Customs v. Hindustan Motors Ltd., reported in 1991 (51) ELT 400. Paras No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 from the said judgment are reproduced below :-
“5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mr. Ram Lal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., reported in AIR 1962 SC page 361 para No. 7 has also held that :-
“In construing Section 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be light heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal.”
6. Earlier in the case of State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality, reported in AIR 1972 SC 749, Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that mere fact that the appellant is state, no special treatment should be accorded to the appellants. Para No. 27 from the said judgment is reproduced below :-
“the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be construed too liberally, merely because the party in default is the Government. It is no doubt true that whether it is a Government or a private party, the provisions of law applicable are the same, unless the statute itself makes any distinction. But it cannot also be gain-said that the same consideration that will be shown by Courts to a private party when he claims the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act should also be available to the State.”
7. This Tribunal had occasion to follow the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodigawa Ltd., reported in 1988 (19) ECR 569 (SC) and in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. F.G.P., reported in 1988 (38) ELT 712. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II v. Supreme Industries Ltd., reported in 1990 (47) ELT A166 had confirmed the findings of the Tribunal where Tribunal had held that delay in the late filing of the appeal in the Tribunal is not condonable firstly there was no proper application on behalf of the Department for condonation of delay and secondly the reasons for delay as given in the Dy. Collector’s letter were not acceptable. In the matter before us Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs v. Ajanta Tube Ltd. had confirmed the findings of the Tribunal.
8. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that there was negligence on the part of the appellant and appellant was not prevented by sufficient cause for late filing of the appeals. We do not find it a fit case to exercise our discretion in condoning the delay in the terms of provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the above captioned 3 applications for condonation of delay for rejected.”
We are in full agreement with earlier view of the Tribunal as discussed above. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that these are not fit cases where the Tribunal should exercise its discretion in terms of provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the above captioned 12 applications for condonation of delay are rejected.
4. Since we have rejected the applications for condonation of delay in the above captioned 12 appeals, the appeals are dismissed being hit by limitation and we are not going into the merits of the same.