2004 (12) TMI 585 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Legal representation availability

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the issue at hand was the delay of 43 days in filing the appeal. The Appellant, represented by Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate, argued that the delay was due to the unavailability of a Consultant in Bilaspur, causing them to miss the deadline. The Advocate cited the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Jaya Engg. Works Ltd. v. Govt. of India to support their plea for condonation of delay. On the other hand, Shri V. Verma, JDR for the Respondent, opposed the condonation, suggesting that the Appellants could have sought assistance elsewhere if one Consultant was unavailable.

The Tribunal, represented by Shri K.C. Mamgain, J., carefully considered the arguments from both sides. It was acknowledged that the Appellants made efforts to file the appeal on time by approaching a Consultant for legal advice on a technical issue. Given the limited availability of legal advisors well-versed in Central Excise Law in a town like Bilaspur, M.P., the Tribunal decided to condone the delay. Additionally, since the Appellants had already deposited the entire disputed amount, the appeal was scheduled for a hearing on 25-4-2005. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court on 22-12-2004.