ORDER
K. Sankararaman, Member (T)
1. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi has filed this application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Reference Application under Section 35G(1) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, The order of the Tribunal No. A/4Q6/94-NRB, dated 22-4-1994 to which the Reference Application relates had been received on 26-5-1994. The Reference Application has been received in the Registry of the Tribunal on 10-8-1994. The delay beyond the normal permitted time limit of sixty days for the filing of Reference Application had been explained by the applicant Collector as due to the time taken for scrutiny of the records and reminders sent to Assistant Collector, Ambala. The time from 23-7-1994 to 5-8-1994 had been spent in review of the matter and consultation with the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I. The report of the Assistant Collector was received on 5-8-1994. The delay of 15 days from 26-7-1994 to 9-8-1994 has been explained to be on account of the consideration of the issue involved and the consultation with the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta which was beyond the control of the functioning of the applicant Collector’s office. The adverse effect of the viral fever on the attendence in the office was also there, it has been stated.
2. The condonation of delay application was argued on behalf of the applicant Collector by Shri M.M. Mathur, learned Joint Chief Departmental Representative. He reiterated the submission contained in the application. He urged that as the delay is only of fifteen days which is well within the limit of thirty days upto which the Tribunal has the discretion to condone the delay may be condoned. The reasons for the delay are genuine and no negligence was there. The issue involved is important and has recurring effect on revenue and there is need for getting an authoritative judicial opinion in the matter. He concluded his argument with the plea that the application be allowed.
3. The argument was strongly opposed by Shri A.N. Haksar, learned Senior Advocate who appeared for the respondents. He was assisted by Shri R. Sudhinder, learned advocate. Shri Haksar contended that the reasons given in the application do not justify themselves. The time taken is mainly on account of official correspondence and reminders to the Assistant Collector to get his report. The other reason given is that the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I had to be consulted in the matter. Shri Haksar submitted that this cannot be a valid reason at all for the time taken and consequent delay in filing the reference application. That Collector is not the administrative head whose clearance could be required for the filing of the Application. There is no indication as to why such a consultation was necessary. If the Collector had chosen to consult his colleague in the matter he should have ensured that the time limit was not passed. He pleaded that the application for condonation may be rejected.
4. Shri Mathur, learned Joint Chief Departmental Representative gave a rejoinder that the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I was probably consulted because the Tribunal in passing their order had relied upon an earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. in which that Collector was the other party. The consultation was made apparently to know the future development in the matter for being taken note of in making the Reference Application. This was a genuine necessity and the delay has been satisfactorily explained which deserves to be considered, concluded Shri Mathur.
5. We have considered the submissions. In terms of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 35G of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Tribunal may, if satisfied that the applicant was [prevented] by sufficient cause from presenting the application within sixty days permit it to be presented within a further period not exceeding thirty days. Examining the present case, in the light of this provision, we are not satisfied that the Collector was prevented from presenting the application in time by sufficient cause. The calling for reports from the Assistant Collector and the consultation with the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta should have been completed by the Collector promptly so that the reference application was filed by him in time. The reasons given do not justify the delay. We, therefore, reject the application for condonation of delay.
6. As the delay has not been condoned by us, the Reference Application itself is dismissed as time-barred.