2004 (5) TMI 336 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal due to premises seizure by KSFC and subsequent lack of records.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal after the premises were seized by KSFC, impacting the appellant's ability to conduct business and prepare the appeal promptly. The impugned order was passed on 18-1-2002 and communicated on 1-3-2002, well after the premises seizure. The appellant argued that due to the landlord's default in payment to KSFC, they were unable to access records inside the industrial shed, leading to the delay in filing the appeal beyond the limitation period of 1-6-2002. The appellant resorted to legal actions against the landlord, including a Writ Petition and a Contempt Petition, due to non-compliance with court orders, further delaying the appeal preparation.

The Tribunal heard arguments from the appellant's advocate and the JCDR representing the respondent. The appellant's counsel requested condonation of delay citing the unavailability of records, while the JCDR contended that the delay was unjustified as the impugned order copy was accessible to the appellants. The Tribunal carefully examined the circumstances, noting that the premises seizure by KSFC on 10-1-2002 did not absolve the appellants from timely filing the appeal. Despite pursuing actions against the landlord, the appellants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Additionally, the Tribunal observed a pattern of adjournments taken by the appellants over two years, indicating a lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal found the appellant's explanation insufficient, deemed negligence evident, and rejected the condonation application, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of timely compliance with appeal filing requirements, even in challenging circumstances such as premises seizure. The lack of a valid explanation for the delay, coupled with a history of adjournments and negligence, led to the rejection of the condonation application and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal.