Full Judgment
2. The learned SDR has reiterated the aforesaid ground mentioned in the application.
3. Opposing the contention, the learned consultant, Shri S.L. Chopra has stated that no adequate reason has been given by the appellant-Collector for condonation of delay. According to the settled law he states that each day's delay has to be explained by the Collector. This has not been done in the subject application. For his proposition, the learned consultant relies on two decisions of the Tribunal, namely (i) 1985 (22) ELT 590 (Tri.). [Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Calcutta Hardware Store (ii) 1986 (26) ELT 784 (Tri.) [Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Grover & Sons 4. I have carefully Considered the pleas advanced on both sides. I observe that the Collecter has not at all explained the reasons for delay as to why it was necessary to receive the opinion of the Assistant Collector. The Collector has got full machinery to get the point examined in his office particularly when a point of law was involved and no questions of fact were to be examined. Secondly, there is also no reason as to what steps he took to get expeditiously the opinion, if necessary, from the Assistant Collector's office. There is no time chart of events in explaining the delay. In these circumstances, I find sufficient force in the plea of the learned consultant for the non-applicant/respondent herein that delayed filing of appeal has not sufficiently been explained. I do not find that there is sufficient cause in delayed filing of the appeal. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
5. In view of the above decision, the appeal itself is time barred and is, therefore, liable to be rejected as such. I order accordingly.