ORDER
D.M. Vasavada, Member (J)
1. Impugned order dated 27-5-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), and as contended in this application, was received by the appellant on 8-6-1988 and that at that time Mrs. Shanta I. Chatterji, who is one of the Directors of the appellant company and actively looking after the affairs of the company was not attending to the affairs of the company due to serious illness of her father and mother. It is, further, contended that in August, 1988, papers for preferring appeal before this Tribunal were handed over to a lawyer, one Mr. R.G. Sonawale, but the papers were misplaced in his office and that same could be traced on 19-6-1989 and were returned to the appellant company and that thereafter the appeal was prepared and filed in the Registry on 12-7-1989. A letter addressed by the said Advocate, Mr. Sonawale, to the appellant company, which is dated 19-6-1989, is produced alongwith an affidavit sworn by the said Advocate stating the above facts. So, it is prayed in this application that delay of 288 days caused in filing this appeal may be condoned. Affidavit of said Mrs. Chatterji is also filed alongwith the sheet showing history of medical treatment availed of for the mother of the said deponent.
2. L.A. Shri Gujral submitted that the appeal could not be filed in time because of all the papers, being misplaced in the office of the Advocate and so there was no negligence or carelessness on the part of the appellant and considering this to be a sufficient reason, the delay may be condoned. He, further, submitted that as Mrs. Chatterji, the Director looking after the affairs of the company, was unable to look after the affairs because of the sickness of her mother and also of her father, consequent upon he having met with an accident.
3. Shri Arora, 1d. J.D.R. contended that appeal has been verified by one Shri S.D. Gawsane, Sr. Executive of the company and so it would suggest that some senior person was there to look after the affairs. He, further, submitted accepting for the sake of argument that papers were misplaced in the office of the Advocate, nothing is placed on record to show what efforts were made by the appellant company in the intervening period either to pursue the matter with the Advocate or to obtain copies of the impugned order and other relevant papers. It is true that the appellant company, being limited company, there may be several senior officers and because Mrs. Chatterji was unable to attend to the affairs of the company, it cannot be justifiably said that the matter of filing the appeal could not be attended to properly. Obviously, this would suggest that there was some negligence on the part of the appellant company. But, as submitted by Shri Gujral, 1d. Advocate, all original papers were handed over to the Advocate Shri Sonawale and as they were not traceable, anyhow, appeal could not have been filed. L. Advocate, Shri Sonawale has filed his affidavit and there is no reason to disbelieve it. So it appears that the main reason for the delay caused in filing the appeal is that the papers were misplaced in the office of the Advocate. L-A., Shri Gujral has cited some judgments in support of this application, but then, every case depends upon its facts and Courts have to exercise discretion judiciously. So, it is not necessary to discuss those authorities. So, we allow this application and condone the delay caused in filing this appeal. Appeal shall be heard on merits.