ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Vice President
1. The prayer in the application is for condonation of delay of 17 days beyond the period of 3 months provided for the purpose under the Customs Act. In the Condonation of Delay application the following reason has been given for the delay in filing the appeal:
The Order-in-Appeal No. 44/96 was received in this office on 1.10.1996. Though the review order has been passed within 3 months from the date of receipt of order i.e. on 30-12-1996 the case worker who is a new person to the seat under the impression that the department has got further 3 months time from the date of review order, further processing has been delayed because of intervening holidays. Hence the delay of 17 days in filing the above appeal before Hon’ble CEGAT may please be condoned and admit the appeal.
2. The matter came up earlier before us and we had asked the learned SDR to produce the case records to substantiate the plea as made before us and also to enlighten as to the supervision exercised and the hierarchial set up to monitor the filing of the appeals in cases like this. We also wanted to know whether any action had been taken against the officer who has mis-read the law and also the notings in the file to ascertain whether the papers had been kept-over by a particular person all along without any action in this regard. We had pointed out to the learned SDR that a general plea that the delay occurred because somebody in the hierarchy had a certain impression about reckoning the limitation for filing the appeal could not be accepted.
3. To-day when the matter was called, the learned SDR has placed before us a file of the Collectorate in which he has referred us to a letter dated 29-11-1996 addressed by the Assistant Commissioner to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to ascertain whether the Order-in-Appeal impugned before us has been accepted to by the Commissioner. This letter we find was written well within the limitation period of 3 months. There is nothing further placed before us as to what transpired after the receipt of this letter by the competent authority who is to take a decision in the matter of filing the appeal.
4. The learned SDR pleaded that his instructions are that the delay occurred because of some wrong understanding about the limitation period available on the part of the dealing Assistant. He is not able to say whether any explanation was called for from the said Assistant and is not also able to enlighten as to what was the monitoring being done in the matter of filing the appeal and the action by the supervisory authorities over the dealing Assistant to ensure filing of the appeal within time.
5. The respondents are absent.
6. We observe that while the delay of 17 days may appear to be not very high, any delay to be condoned has to be based on some acceptable reason which can be taken to constitute sufficient cause. As to what would constitute sufficient cause, of course will depend upon facts of each case. However, for any contingency to constitute sufficient cause, there has to be a basis. In the present case, apart from the ipsi dixit that the dealing Assistant mis-understood the relevant date for reckoning the limitation period. There is nothing on record to show that this in fact was so and that the dealing Assistant’s explanation was called for and that he has said so. Further, we observe that the department has a hierarchial set up and in the hierarchy there are various supervisory levels. Nothing has been brought on record that inspite of the best efforts made by the supervisory officers to ensure the filing of the appeal within time, because of the inaction on the part of the dealing Assistant the appeal could not be filed within time. In a situation like this, therefore, in the absence of any acceptable basis having been laid out for condonation of delay, we are not able to accede to the request of the learned SDR for condonation of the delay. We, therefore, dismiss the prayer for condonation of delay.
7. In as much as the delay is not condoned, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.