ORDER
Shri S.L. Peeran
1. In this application for condonation of delay, the Revenue seeks delay of 35 days in filing this appeal. The reason given by the Assistant Commissioner in the application is that the matter had been marked to the Preventive and Intelligence unit for necessary action. Due to the day-to-day surveillance being maintained by the Preventive staff over the units and also regular duties, the matter has not been attended in time. Further, consequent to joining of a new officer, the work was allotted to the said officer who, while getting himself aquantted with the new task assigned to him, there was a delay and that should be condoned.
2. Ld. D.R. was given sufficient time in this matter to file the time chart to indicate the persons who had been involved in the matter and explain the delay further vide our Note sheet order dated 18.12.2000 and 5.2.2001. Ld. D.R. points out that the Assistant Commissioner has filed the affidavit re-arranging the same facts and also has filed time chart.
3. On a perusal of the time chart, the person to whom to matter was entrusted has not been named. The affidavit of the concerned person who was incharge and who neglected his duty in filing the appeal has not been disclosed either. The application fervently pleaded in allowing the application by condoning the delay.
4. However, it is opposed seriously by Ld. counsel stating that despite the Tribunal’s direction, the appellants through their Commissioner has merely reiterated the earlier stand without giving out the name of the person/persons and their affidavit and as to how they neglected in their duties. He points out when there is negligence patent on records, the delay should not be condoned as held by Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. [1988 (38) ELT 739(SC)]. He submits that this judgment and other judgments were applied in identical case where there was 25 days delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue by this bench in the case of CC, Madras Vs. Cork International (P) Ltd. by final order No.685/2000 dated 24.5.2000. He also relies on the judgment of CC, Bombay Vs. Parkar Corporation [1987(29)ELT 300 (Trib.) where in the Tribunal after examining several judgments did not condone the delay. Even in that case, the time chart had been filed and the present time chart is almost on the same lines. He also relies on the judgment rendered in the case of Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE [1989 (42) ELT 83 (Trib.) wherein the cause shown of the concerned person being on leave and matter not having been attended by the other officers was held to be not a sufficient grounds. In this judgment, the earlier judgments of the Tribunal and the Apex Court judgment have been examined. He submitted that the present cause given by the Commissioner has been held to be not sufficient in the cited judgments. Therefore, he seeks for rejection of the application for COD.
5. On a careful consideration, we notice that the Tribunal had given clear direction to the said Assistant Commissioner who had filed the earlier application to disclose the name of person/persons who were in charge and who did not take interest in filing the appeal within time. This has not been done except to file a time chart. The time chart does not help the Revenue in the matter as the plea raised is that the matter was given to the Preventive Section to file the appeal. In the facts and circumstances and in view of clear-cut judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel, there is no cause shown for condoning the 30 delay. Therefore, the application for COD is rejected. As a result, the stay and appeal filed by the Revenue are also rejected. The Cross appeal is not pressed by the Advocate and hence it is also rejected. Ordered accordingly.
6. (Pronounced & dictated in open Court)