Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Sairam Engineering Works vs Collector Of Central Excise on 4 September, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(91)ELT608(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Bombay, dated nil but attested by the Supdt. on 28-9-1987.
2. Learned Counsel stated that they have filed an appeal against the A.C.'s order before the Collector (Appeals) with an application for condonation of delay of 79 days in filing the appeal. The delay had been caused due to serious illness of the wife of the appellant who was the only male partner of the firm. Since the ailment was serious, the appellant could not attend to his normal activities properly and could not file the appeal within the prescribed time.
3. The Collector (Appeals), however, rejected the COD application and consequently, the appeal which was filed against the A.C.'s order and on that basis, the appeal against the consequential demand order passed by the Supdt. with reference to the A.C.'s order.
4. It was his submission that learned Collector should have allowed the application for condonation of delay as the wife was suffering from a very serious disease for which she was required to be treated by a Psychiatrist. He has since produced a certificate issued by Dr. Ravi Abhyankar dated 12-8-1996 which certifies that Mrs. Sunita Agarwal was under his treatment some time in 1985-86-87. She was suffering from 'Anorexia Nervosa' and the presence of a responsible relative, her husband was necessary.
5. Actually she continued to suffer seriously and ultimately expired on 11-9-1987. They have filed a copy of the 'Death Certificate' issued by Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay No. 028153, dated 20-10-1987.
6. He has also brought some photographs to show how she had been suffering and had actually been hospitalised.
7. In the circumstances, he would request that the order of the Collector (Appeals) may be set aside and matter may be remanded for consideration of the case on merits. He would also like to mention that at the original stage also, neither reply to the show cause notice was filed nor the hearing was attended as they did not receive the notice of hearing.
8. At the Collector (Appeals) stage also, the case had been dismissed only as time-barred without going into the merits of the case.
9. Learned DR opposed the prayer mentioning that the death of the appellant's wife has taken place subsequent to the filing of the appeal. Furthermore, the certificate issued by Dr. Ravi Abhyankar is dated 12-8-1996 and merely states that she was under treatment during 1985-86 and 1987 and was suffering from Anorexia Nervosa and the presence of a relative was necessary during the treatment. In his opinion, this was not sufficient to show that the appellant was not in a position to undertake his normal business activities and file the appeal and the certificate does not include any other detail.
10. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the appellant has produced a certificate of the Psychiatrist before us and we see no reason to doubt the same.
11. The certificate relates to the relevant period i.e. the period during which delay took place. We feel that we cannot be highly technical in such matters and they cannot be disposed of in a mechanical way and humanitarian considerations are also required to be kept in view. Therefore, looking to the totality of facts and circumstances as mentioned before us, we consider that it is a fit case where delay ought to have been condoned. Hence, we set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector for de novo consideration in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard in the matter.