MADAN B. LOKUR, J.--- This application for condonation of delay states that the impugned order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) is dated 25th March, 2003 and the appellant received it on 10th April, 2003.
2. Admittedly, the period of limitation for filing an appeal to this Court is six months. Consequently, the period for filing the appeal would have expired on or about 10th October, 2003. According to the appellant, the appeal was filed on 20th April, 2004, that is, after about a delay of about 186 days and condonation of this delay is prayed for in this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
3. As per the record available before us, Mr. Rajendra Prakash, Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I signed the application for condonation of delay on . 28th September, 2004, and an affidavit in support of the application was also attested on the same day. The date of filing the appeal stamped by the Registry of this Court shows that the appeal was filed on 28th September, 2004 by Filing No. 30399. The Court-fee stamps affixed to the appeal memo. also show that they were crossed on 28th September, 2004.
4. Under these circumstances, it appeared to us, prima facie, that the averment made in the application for condonation of delay was incorrect. We, therefore, repeatedly requested learned counsel for the appellant to show us some proof of filing the appeal on 20th April, 2004 as averred in the application.
5. Unfortunately, learned counsel could neither show us any paper to substantiate the averment that the appeal was filed on 20th April, 2003, nor could he indicate the filing number under which the appeal was said to have been filed. Consequently, we have no option but to proceed on the basis that the appeal was filed on 28th September, 2004 as per our records and not on 20th April, 2004 as averred in the application for condonation of delay. The appeal is, therefore, filed after a delay of about one year and not 186 days as contended.
6. The reason for delay in filing the appeal is stated in paragraphs 6 to 8 of the application. These read as follows:-- "6. That the said delay could take place on account of the frequent transfers of the officers dealing with the matters and resulting communication gap between the counsel and the Department.
That the appellant is Union of India and the accompanying application involves huge amount of public exchequer. That the delay occurred filing the CEAC could take place due to unavoidable circumstances and communication gap between the officials and the counsel."
7. The averments made in the application for condonation of delay are as vague as they can possibly be. There is nothing to show who was the officer dealing with the matter and when he was transferred. There is also nothing to show what steps were taken by the successor-in-office of the transferred officer: If the amount involved is huge for the public exchequer, at least some seriousness ought to have been shown in the matter and certainly not the casual approach, as is evident from the records of the case.
8. The application for condonation of delay seems to have been filed in a routine manner and mechanically, expecting the Court to condone the delay without any application of mind. To say the least, this cavalier attitude of the appellant deserves to be deprecated.
9. To make matters worse, the appellant has filed a false affidavit in this Court, thereby seeking to reduce the period of delay in filing the appeal. Why this has been done is not clear.
10.For the reasons above-mentioned, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application is accordingly dismissed.
11.We may record here that in Court, we had adequately warned learned counsel for the appellant to be far more careful in future failing which his conduct may have to be brought to the notice of the Bar Council.
12.The Registry should send a copy of this order to Mr. Rajendra Prakash, Commissioner of.
Central Excise, Delhi-I for his information. It should be made clear to Mr. Prakash that for the present we are not proceeding against, him, but should he file a false affidavit against stern action for perjury and contempt of Court is likely to be initiated against him.