2003 (12) TMI 341 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal against order-in-appeal.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the issue revolved around a request for condonation of a 77-day delay in filing an appeal against the order-in-appeal. The appellant's counsel explained that the copy of the impugned order was initially delivered to the factory's Security personnel while the factory was closed. It was later received by an authorized personnel of the appellant, Shri O.P. Jain, who then filed the appeal to the Tribunal within ten days of receiving the order. However, due to the delay in the initial delivery to the factory gate, there was a delay in filing the appeal.

During the proceedings, it was brought to light that a Consultant had appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter. The appellant's advocate clarified that while the Consultant did appear, the order was not dispatched to him post-hearing, leading to a lack of communication regarding the order details. The Departmental Representative (DR) strongly argued against the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, noted that the factory being closed contributed to the lack of communication. It was highlighted that the appeal was initiated promptly after the copy of the impugned order was received by Mr. Jain on 13-9-2003. The Tribunal acknowledged the circumstances and found a valid case for condonation of the delay. Consequently, the appeal was admitted by condoning the delay, and the COD application was allowed, with the stay application scheduled for a hearing on 5-1-2004.