Murale Match Works vs The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and Others

V. Ratnam, Ag. C.J.

We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal and we also very carefully perused the order of the learned Judge.

Admittedly, there was an enormous delay in the filing of the appeal by the appellant before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate

Tribunal. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay after rejecting the explanation offered by the appellant for the delay. That was also

unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant in W.P. No. 12264 of 1988. This Court also took the view that the appellant had not in any manner

explained the inordinate delay and dismissed the Writ Petition, the correctness of which is questioned in this appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the delay in the filing of the appeal by the appellant before the Tribunal has been

satisfactorily explained as on account of certain proceedings pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the delay in the communication

of the order of that Court as well as the subsequent taking of steps in the matter of preferring an appeal, etc. We are of the view that the

explanation so offered cannot at all be accepted. The order of the Collector of the Central Excise was passed on 13.3.1983 and served on the

appellant on 5.4.1983. The appeal before the Tribunal against that order should have been filed on or before 5.7.1983. Without doing so, the

appellant filed W.P. before the Andhra Pradesh High Court only after about 2 months, after the receipt of the order. The Writ petition was

dismissed on. 9.11.1987. The appeal was filed before the Tribunal only on 29.7.1988. It is thus seen that at every stage, there is unexplained delay

in the matter of prosecuting the proceedings. We are unable to accept that the appellant could not have taken steps in time. Even after receiving a

copy of the order, the Appellant had delayed the matter in approaching the High Court at Andhra Pradesh. Though the writ petition was disposed

of by that High Court on 9.11.1987 the appellant had come forward with an excuse that the result of the Writ Petition was not communicated till

9.11.1987. We do not find any acceptable reasons for this delay. We are also not inclined to accept that the appellant was waiting to secure the

order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. On a careful consideration of the facts and the circumstances

of the case, we are of the view that the learned Judge was quite right in declining to exercise the discretion in the matter of condonation of the delay

in favour of the appellant. There is no infirmity in the order of the learned Judge meriting interference in appeal. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.