2004 (1) TMI 508 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal - Delay in filing - Communication of order - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Condonation of delay - Appeal - Delay in filing

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal by M/s. Gujral Aircon Ltd.
2. Date of communication of the order to the appellant.
3. Endorsement of the order to Shri J.S. Gujral.
4. Contention regarding strong prima facie case in favor of the applicants.
5. Impact of previous Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions on the delay in filing the appeal.

For the first issue, the judgment addresses the delay in filing the appeal by M/s. Gujral Aircon Ltd. The order under challenge was dated 12-6-2001, but the appellant claimed they did not receive the copy of the order until 21-2-2003. The appellant argued that there was no delay in filing the appeal as it was done within three months from the date of communication of the order. However, after examining the despatch register and postal receipt, it was established that the order was despatched to the appellant on 12-6-2001, and therefore, the application to condone the delay was not sustained.

Moving on to the second issue regarding the date of communication of the order to the appellant, it was clarified that the order was despatched on 12-6-2001, as evidenced by the despatch register and postal receipt. Despite the appellant's claim of not receiving the order until 21-2-2003, the evidence presented confirmed the date of despatch, leading to the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay.

Regarding the third issue of endorsement of the order to Shri J.S. Gujral, the Director of Gujral Aircon Ltd., it was noted that there was only one appeal filed by the company before the Commissioner (Appeals). As the copy of the order was sent to M/s. Gujral Aircon Ltd. and not directly to Shri J.S. Gujral, the contention that the date of receipt of the photocopy by the company should be considered for the purpose of limitation in filing the appeal was rejected.

The fourth issue raised was the contention regarding a strong prima facie case in favor of the applicants based on established law from various judgments. The judgment highlighted that the belated filing of the appeal was not justified, especially considering the decisions of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court at the time the order was passed, which were against the appellants' contentions. The delay in filing the appeal was deemed to be an afterthought following subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court.

Lastly, the impact of previous Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions on the delay in filing the appeal was discussed. The judgment emphasized that the decisions in question were not in favor of the appellants at the time the order was passed, and the belated filing of the appeal was attributed to a change in views by the Supreme Court in later decisions. As a result, the applications for condonation of delay were dismissed, and the appeals were disposed of.