2002 (1) TMI 749 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, condonation of delay, reasons for delay, communication of impugned order, restoration of appeal, legal precedents for condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The case involves the Appellate Tribunal dismissing three appeals filed by a company due to a delay in filing the appeals. The company argued that they did not receive any notice of hearing or the final order, only becoming aware of it later. They claimed to have taken steps to comply with the appeal process promptly. The company's advocate cited legal precedents where delays were condoned based on merit and sufficient cause, emphasizing that similar appeals by other parties were decided in their favor.

The Respondent, represented by the learned SDR, acknowledged no objection to restoring the appeal but argued that the delay in filing was not justifiable. They pointed out that the applicants took over four years to approach the Commissioner's office for a certified copy of the impugned order, despite being aware of it earlier. The Respondent contended that the applicants did not act reasonably in obtaining the order promptly, as they should have approached the Commissioner's office immediately upon learning about the order.

The Tribunal allowed the application for the restoration of the appeal but agreed with the Respondent that the applicants failed to provide sufficient reasons for the significant delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal highlighted the legal requirement for appeals to be filed within three months of the communication of the impugned order, which was not met in this case due to the prolonged delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay of over four years was unjustified, and the excuses provided were insufficient. They differentiated this case from legal precedents where delays were condoned, emphasizing the extreme length of the delay in this instance. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all three appeals filed by the company due to the lack of sufficient cause for the delay.

This judgment underscores the importance of timely filing of appeals and the necessity to provide valid and justifiable reasons for any delays encountered in the legal process. It clarifies the legal standards for condoning delays and highlights the significance of acting promptly and reasonably in legal proceedings to avoid adverse consequences.