2004 (10) TMI 529 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal, reasons for delay, sufficiency of reasons for condonation of delay, comparison with relevant case laws.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for condonation of a 313-day delay in filing an appeal. The reasons provided for the delay included a fire accident, labor union protest, financial crisis, lack of administration, and absence of the consultant due to an accident. The appellants argued that the delay was satisfactorily explained, citing a Delhi High Court judgment and referring to case laws. The Tribunal examined the reasons for delay and compared them with relevant precedents.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and case laws cited by both parties. It noted that the impugned order was received on 1-6-2002, and the appeal should have been filed by 1-9-2002. However, the appeal was filed on 15-7-2003, resulting in a delay of 313 days. The reasons related to events prior to the receipt of the order were deemed irrelevant. The only valid reason for delay was the absence of the consultant, as confirmed by affidavits. However, the explanation provided did not cover the entire delay period, raising questions about the sufficiency of the reasons.

The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court judgment emphasizing a pragmatic approach to determining "sufficient cause" for delay. Despite this, the Tribunal found the reasons insufficient to condone the delay. It also cited a Madras High Court case where delay was not condoned due to negligence. Similarly, in another case, delay was attributed to the negligence of the consultant. The Tribunal found parallels between those cases and the present situation, highlighting the negligence of the consultant in misplacing the order and the appellants' failure to monitor the appeal process.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that condoning the 313-day delay would be a legal mistake. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself were rejected. Additionally, the application seeking early hearing of the appeal was also dismissed. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, bringing the case to a close.