Judgment:
1. Mangalam Dyes and Chemicals XXXVIII/13, A-2, T.D. Road, Ernakulam has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order-in-appeal No. 21/85(C) dated 15-2-1985 passed by the Collector of Appeals, Central Excise, Madras. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on 8-8-1985.
Simultaneously the appellant had also filed an application for condonation of delay.
2. The application for condonation of delay was posted for hearing. The matter was called. Shri P.S. Bedi, the learned Consultant on behalf of the appellant has appeared. He has reiterated the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay. He has pleaded that the date of the order is 15-2-1985 and the same was received by the appellant 2 or 3 days after this. He has pleaded that after receipt of the order the same was handed over to one of the employees of Shri P.K. John, who had lost his bag in the train. In support of his contentions, he has filed an affidavit of Shri P.K. John. He has pleaded that after the loss of the copy of the order the appellant had filed an application for the grant of a certified copy to the Superintendent (Technical), Central Excise, Tharakkandam, Ernakulam and he was able to get a certified copy on 5-7-1985 and after getting the certified copy he had filed the appeal before the Tribunal. He has pleaded that the limitation of 3 months for filing of appeal has to be computed from the date of the receipt of the certified copy from the office of Superintendent Central Excise, Tharakkandam, Ernakulam viz. 5-7-1985.
He has pleaded that the loss of papers by an employee of the applicant company is a sufficient cause. He has further argued that the contentions made in the affidavit of Shri P.K. John are duly corroborated by the affidavit of Dr. M.I. Itty, who is husband of the Managing Partner Mrs. Sicily George. He has pleaded that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal and as such the delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned.
3. In reply Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, the learned JDR has opposed the condonation of delay. He has pleaded that a certified copy cannot be prepared from a certified copy and as such the certified copy of the order filed by the applicant is not a valid document in the eyes of law and the learned Departmental Representative has referred to a judgment of the East Regional Bench in the case of Angus Company Limited v.Collector of Customs, Calcutta reported in 1985 (21)E.L.T. 518. He has pleaded that the applicant has not been able to establish a sufficient cause and there is negligence on his part. He has also referred to another judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. East Coast Paper Mills 709. He has pleaded that in view of the earlier judgment of the Tribunal the application for condonation of delay should be rejected.
4. In reply, Shri P.S. Bedi, the learned Consultant has pleaded that a certified copy was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise and the time taken by the applicant in getting a certified copy should be excluded in computing the period of limitation. He has pleaded that this Court should exercise its discretion and condone the delay.
5. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we felt that it is not a fit case for condonation of delay. There is negligence on the part of the applicant.
The applicant has not been able to establish that he was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. "After the expiry of the period of limitation the respondent acquires substantial rights.
The appellant has to explain each and every day's delay in the filing of appeal. It is a settled law that the cause for delay which by due care and attention, the party could have avoided, cannot be a sufficient cause. The Limitation Law ought to receive such a construction as the language in its plain meaning imports. The rule must be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party.
The Judge cannot on equitable grounds enlarge the time allowed by law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognised by it.
It was so held by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Rampath and Ors. reported in AIR 1972 Rajasthan 161.
The Hon'ble Court had further held that there was no sufficient cause which could entitle the appellant for extension of time as all of them acted without due care and attention. The Hon'ble High Court had followed the judgment of Calcutta High Court and Privy Council reported in AIR 1933 Cal. 462 and AIR 1941 Privy Council 6 (not cited by the parties). I would also like to observe that in condoning the delay, the Court should be very cautious as the substantial rights of the other party are affected. When the time for appealing is once passed, a very valuable right is secured to the successful litigant and the Court must therefore be fully satisfied of the justice on the ground on which the appellant seeks to obtain an extension of time for attacking the decree and thus perhaps defining the successful litigant of the advantages which he has attained-Karsondas v. Bai Gungabai, 30 Bom. 329 (330): Sanghni v. Gopeswar, 12 CLJ 615 (617), Dund Bahadur v. Deo Nandan 17 LJ 596; Sarat Chander v. Saraswati, 34 Cal. 126 (221) ; Sphan v. Abdul Hameed Khan, AIR 1976 All. 159. (Extract taken from the Limitation Act, 18th Edition by B.B. Mitra, page 58). In construing the provisions of Limitation, strict grammatical meaning of word has to be taken. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 S.C. 361 had held that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisidiction vested in the Court by Section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration ; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. The judgment of Ramlal v.Rewa Coalfields Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 S.C. 361 was followed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sohan v. Abdul Hameed Khan reported in AIR 1976 (All.) 159. The relevant head note from the said judgment is reproduced as under : "In dealing with an application under Section 5 for condoning delay in filing appeal beyond the prescribed period it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations namely (1) the expiration of limitation for making appeal gives rise to a legal right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties and this legal right should not be light-heartedly disturbed and (2) if sufficient cause for excusing the delay is shown the applicant is not entitled as a matter of right to condonation of delay but discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit appeal." 7. Since we are dismissing the application for condonation of delay, we dismiss the appeal as barred by time.