ORDER
V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)
1. Under order dated 23-8-1982 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Yeshwantpur classified the Varnished Fibre Glass Sleevings manufactured by the respondents M/s. Rekho Glass Electrical Insultations, Bangalore under Item No. 22-F(iv) CET and further held that they were exempted under Notification No. 87/77-C.E., dated 16-3-1976. The Department carried the matter in appeal to the Collector (Appeals) who under his order dated 16-9-1983 confirmed both findings of the Assistant Collector and dismissed the appeal. It is against the said order that the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore as filed the present appeal.
2. The notice sent to the respondents has been returned with the postal endorsement “left W/I”. We find that this appeal has been preferred on 13-2-1984 and was thus preferred after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore has, therefore, enclosed an application for condonation of delay. The reason stated therein is that the matter was under correspondence with the lower formations regarding the test report of the Chief Chemist, New Delhi (which was to be cited to substantiate the case) and the appeal could not, therefore, be filed in time. The Applicant further states that as the test report had not been received even at the time the appeal was filed, the same would be filed subsequently.
3. Since the question of condonation of delay will have to be considered in the first instance we have heard Shri Sachar for the department on the same even in the absence of the respondents. We felt that if their was a prima facie case made out for condonation of delay notice may be sent to the respondents but not otherwise. Shri Sachar reiterated the submissions in the application as mentioned earlier and further submitted that if time is given he shall obtain fuller particulars from the Collector by way of an affidavit also if necessary and thereafter seek to support the application for condonation. We have considered the said request as also the reason given at present in the application for condonation.
4. As earlier mentioned the delay in filing the appeal is sought to be explained on the ground that a test report was sought for from the Chief Chemist and the same had not been obtained by the time the appeal was filed. No indications are given as to when the step to send for the test report was taken and, if there was any delay in taking that step itself, why the delay had occurred. In any event it is not known why if the test report had not yet been received the appeal was filed without the same if the same was earlier felt necessary for preferring the appeal itself. On the facts and circumstances of this case we feel that no satisfactory explanation has been given as to why, the appeal could not have been filed within the normal time. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. The appeal is consequently dismissed as barred by the time.