JUDGMENT
S.L. Peeran
1. Revenue has filed these two appeals against two separate Orders-in-Appeal No. C.Cus. No. 141/2001 dated 16.3.2001 and C.Cus. No. 142/2001 dated 16.3.2001. There is a delay of 58 days in filing these two appeals and the Asst. Commissioner (Review cell) has filed the application seeking condonation in both the appeals.
2. The application has not been filed by the Commissioner of Customs, nor the affidavit has been filed by him in its support. The authorization has been signed by the Commissioner. Since, the application for condonation of delay has to be filed only by the Commissioner of Customs to explain the delay, and it has not been so done appeals are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. However, we notice that the reason given by the AC (Review cell) in the application is that there was considerable delay in tracing out the original documents and in preparation of appeals which is purely administrative in nature and it may be condoned. There is no time chart filed nor the person who was responsible for dealing with the matter has been named and as to how the papers were lost and how it could not be traced out explained in both the applications. Both the applications are identically worded.
3. Ld. DR points out to various judgments cited in the application and submits that the same should be taken into consideration for condoning the delay. Further reference has been made to COLLECTOR ANANTNAG v. M.S.T. KATIJI 1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC) wherein the Apex Court took the view that a pedantic approach should not be taken and one day’s delay is required to be condoned. Further more judgments have been cited wherein the delay was marginal and reasons had been given and these reasons were found to be sufficient to condone the delay.
4. Ld. Consultant submits that there is no explanation filed for the delay caused and submits that negligence and laches are apparent on record and in that circumstances, delay cannot be condoned in terms of Apex Court judgment rendered in UNION OF INDIA v. TATA YUDOGAWA LTD., 1998 (38) ELT 739 (SC).
5. On careful consideration of the submissions made, we notice that the applications have not been filed by the Commissioner as per law. Further, the AC has merely stated that delay was caused in tracing out the original documents and preparation of appeals which is purely administrative in nature and it could be condoned. The explanation is not satisfactory. The negligence is patent on record. Only if sufficient cause is shown and by which the negligence is not brought out, but due diligence has been shown, then only the delay is required to be condoned. The delay of 58 days has not been explained. The person in charge who has misplaced the original documents or the delay in tracing of documents has not been explained. Revenue had three months time to build up the files. After expiry of the period, they have not taken any efforts to do so nor they have explained as to how it took 58 days for filing the appeal. The judgment quoted by Ld. DR in the application in COLLECTOR ANANTNAG v. M.S.T. KATIJI pertained to condonation of delay of one day wherein there was no negligence patent on record, while in the case of UOI v. TATA YUDOGAWA (supra) identical reasons were given regarding administrative inconvenience and dislocation of files which was not accepted by the Apex Court as a sufficient reason to condone the delay. Applying the ratio of this judgment, the COD applications are rejected. As a consequence, the stay applications & appeals are also accordingly rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)