JUDGMENT
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. In this Application for condonation of delay the appellants have not given any reason to condone the delay.
The order in original was issued on 13.2.2001. In the application the appellant states that accidentally he saw the order in his press addressed on 11.4.2001 and took immediate action to file the appeal. He was stated that one of the boys working in the press, who is not educated, received the order but failed to inform him. The actual date of receipt of is not known to him.
2. Although the order was received on 11.4.2001 and the date for filing expires on 12.5.2001, the appellant has not chosen to file the appeal till 2.7.2001. There is no explanation forthcoming for not filing the appeal from the date of expiry of the limitation i.e. 1.2.2001 to 2.7.2001 except what has been stated in the application which is recorded.
3. Ld. Consultant seeks indulgence of the Tribunal to condone the delay. The prayer is opposed by the Ld. DR on the ground that the application does not disclose any reason. The order had been seen by the appellants on 11.4.201 as per his own admission. The date expired on 12.5.2001 and the appeal has been filed on 2.7.2001. There is no explanation given for belated filing of the appeal by which the latches are clear on record and therefore the appeal is required to be dismissed without condoning the delay.
4. Heard both the sides. On a careful consideration, we notice that even as per the appellant’s own admission he has seen the order on 1.4.2001 well before the date of expiry of the limitation to file appeal. There is no explanation for the period after three months from the date of receipt of the order. In the absence of any explanation forthcoming the appeal is deemed to be time barred, as latches are clear the same cannot be condoned in terms of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. TATA YODOGAWA LTD reported in 1988 (38) ELT 739 (SC). Respectfully following the Apex Court judgment, the application for condonation is rejected. As a result the stay application and appeal are rejected.
(order dictated and pronounced in the open court)