ORDER
K. Gopal Hegde, Member (J)
1. The appeal filed before the Central Board of Excise & Customs against the Order No. S/10- 121/81B dated 9.11.1981 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal.
2. When this appeal was taken up for consideration Shri Punwani made a prayer for adjournment in order to file certain documents. At this stage it was pointed out to Shri Punwani that even according to the averments contained in the appeal memorandum the appeal before the Board was barred by limitation and therefore no useful purpose would be served by acceding to his request.
3. The Addl. Collector’s order though dated 9.11.1981 it was despatched on 13.1.1982. At the relevant time the appeal to the Board was required to be filed within a period of three months, from the date of communication of the order. But then, the appeal was received by the Board on 31st July, 1982 after a period of more than six months. In their memorandum of appeal the appellant did not contend that the despatch date was not correct or that they received the appeal on any particular date. On the other hand, it was specifically averred. “There has been delay in filing the appeal; and the period of 3 months could have been extended to 6 months, under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, but even this has been exceeded by a few days. The reasons for this delay are….”
4. Thus the appellants themselves admit that the appeal was filed before the Board beyond the period of six months.
5. As the law then stood, the Board had power to condone delay of 3 months only. It could not condone the delay if it exceeds 3 months. Thus the appeal before the Board was clearly barred by time and the delay was not condonable under law, even if the delay was caused due to justifiable reasons.
6. Since the appeal before the Board was barred by time there is no option but to reject this appeal. Accordingly, I reject this appeal.