P.G. Chacko, Member (J) - (1.)THERE are two applications before us, both by the Corporation of Chennai (Appellant), one praying for condonation of the delay involved in the filing of the appeal and the other seeking waiver of pre -deposit and stay of recovery in respect of an amount of duty of Rs. 12,53,915 covering the period August 1987 to July 1992.
(2.)WE take up the first application, which has been filed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai. The delay sought to be condoned is over 10 years. The order of the Collector of Central Excise impugned in the captioned appeal was received by the appellant on 15.5.1993. The appeal was filed on 2.6.2003 with a delay of over one decade. This delay is sought to be explained thus:
Due to "sheer ignorance and confusion as to how to proceed and what to do first", the appellant was unable to take any action in relation to the impugned order for quite some time. The appellant did not know that the 'concrete blocks' which were manufactured by the Corporation in their Central Yard and utilised for maintenance of the city roads were exigible to Central Excise duty, The Corporation did not have a "Central Excise Law Cell". A Superintending Engineer of the Corporation, upon realising that the concrete blocks were dutiable, wrote to the Central Excise Range Superintendent requesting for grant of exemption from payment of duty and received a reply to the effect that only the Central Government had the power to grant such exemption. Accordingly, the Corporation approached the Central Government for exemption of the above product from payment of duty of excise. This request was turned down as communicated in a letter dated 16.6.1998 of the Government of India addressed to the Secretary to the State Govt., Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department. The appellant, thereupon, submitted a review application, which is said to be pending. They expect to get favourable orders on the review application. The appellant proceeds to state that, "due to lack of direction and guidance in the process of obtaining exemption from duty", undue time was lost. Finally, it is stated that, if they are forced to pay duty on concrete blocks, considerable damage will occur to their civic welfare activities.

(3.)ACCORDING to Ld. Counsel, the delay has to be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case. The time taken by the Corporation to pursue their case before Governmental authorities for exemption from payment of duty on concrete blocks should be excluded from the period of limitation in terms of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. In this connection, he relies on the decision of the Tribunal in Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, 1992 (62) ELT 820 (T), wherein the question whether the time spent erroneously in appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee was excludible from the period of limitation for an appeal filed later with the Collector (Appeals) against an order of the Deputy Collector, in terms of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, was remanded to the Collector (Appeals). Ld. Counsel also relies on the Madras High Court's decision in Southern Engineering Industries v. Superintendent of Central Excise, 1991 (52) ELT 373 (Mad.), wherein it was held that, as time (7 years) was spent in good faith before High Court, the assessee was entitled to condonation of delay of statutory appeal if filed with Tribunal within four weeks. Reliance has also been placed on the High Court's decision in Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, 1993 (66) ELT 63 (Mad.), wherein a delay of 1 year and 40 days, which was found to have been sufficiently explained, was condoned by the Court after noting that the delay was occasioned by the fact that a Notification was issued by the Central Govt. on 10.12.1987 with retrospective effect from 1.3.1986. Ld. Counsel, further, relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors., 1996 (II) CTC 109, wherein the Apex Court considered the ambit of the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and held that Courts should consider it with pragmatism and justice -oriented approach. Ld. Counsel has also referred to the Tribunal's decision in CCE v. Gujarat State Fertilizer Corporation, 1987 (31) ELT 224 (T), wherein a delay of 27 days involved in the filing of an appeal by the Revenue was condoned, having regard to the modus operandi of the governmental machinery.
Ld. SDR vehemently opposes this application by submitting that the appellant has hopelessly failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of the decade -long delay of the appeal. The Corporation had obtained L 4 licence from the Central Excise Department for their Electrical Workshop at Anna Pillai Street, Madras -1, which indicated that they were aware of Central Excise liability in respect of the goods manufactured in their electrical workshop and captively consumed. The Corporation became conscious of the excise liability in respect of cement concrete blocks atleast in 1997 as evidenced by the fact that they applied to the Central Govt. for examination in September 1997. Though that application was rejected, they still did not choose to file statutory appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise. In any case, according to Ld. SDR, the delay of over ten years cannot be condoned in the absence of exceptional reasons. Ld. SDR has relied on the Supreme Court's decision in UOI v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd., 1988 (38) ELT 739 (SC), wherein a SLP filed by the Revenue with a delay of 51 days was dismissed by the Apex Court after finding that two spells of delay comprised in the said period of 51 days were not cogently explained.