ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (T)
1. This is a revenue appeal in which condonation of delay application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 141 days. The reason given is that the file had been misplaced and had landed in different other sections and it took quite some time to identify the file section-wise and retrieval was possible only in the last week of May, 1998 and immediately action had been taken to review the case accordingly. A decision had been taken to file this case and in the process, a delay of 141 has occurred.
2. It is noticed that even as per this statement, the file had been retrieved in the last week of May, 1998 but yet the appellant has come to appeal only on 11-6-1998. The delay from the date of retrieval till the end has not been explained. They have not filed the time chart.
3. Opposing the prayer for condonation of delay, learned Counsel files list of judgments wherein it has been held that where there is no sufficient cause the delay cannot be condoned. In this, he relies on the Supreme Court judgment as rendered in the case of U.O.I. v. Tata Yodogawa Limited reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 wherein on the similar grounds a delay of 51 days had not been condoned. Likewise, in the case of CCE v. FGP Ltd., reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 712, a delay of 29 days has not been condoned on the same facts of misplacement of files. So also, in the case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 599, it has been held that misplacement of papers is not sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
4. Learned DR relies on the judgment referred to in the application for condonation of delay.
5. We are of the considered opinion that even if those judgments had been taken into consideration, the learned Commissioner has not explained the delay from the last week of May, 1998 to 11-6-1998. There is no affidavit nor there is a time chart and in view of ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I. v. Tata Yodogawa Limited, the reason given is not to be considered as sufficient cause for COD.
6. Learned DR seeks time at this stage to get the time chart.
7. However, in this case an opportunity had been given to get the time chart. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the reason given on misplacement of papers have been repeatedly held as not sufficient cause for condonation. Even in the case of CC v. Conway Printers (P) Ltd. reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 604 (T), the Tribunal has distinguished all other Supreme Court judgments relied on by the Commissioner in the present case and has in turn, relied on the judgment of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 361 and that of UOI v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. (supra). They have also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality reported in AIR 1972 SC 749. In that view of the matter there is no merit in this application and hence same is rejected. As a result, the appeal is also rejected.