2006 (3) TMI 414 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery.

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an adverse order passed by the original authority. The appeal was filed on 9-8-2004, while the impugned order was received by the Company on 15-6-04. The appellant claimed the delay occurred due to the failure of their counsel. The appellant's consultant argued that the factory was closed during the material period, and they did not receive the order until it was served by the Range Officer on 15-6-2004. However, a report from the Commissioner (Appeals) indicated that the order was dispatched via Speed Post Acknowledgement Due on 19-9-2001 to the office address, not the factory address. The Tribunal noted that there was a rebuttable presumption in favor of the postal authorities under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The appellant failed to provide supporting evidence to rebut this presumption. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the impugned order was received by the appellant in September 2001. The heavy delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained, leading to the dismissal of the application and the appeal.

Waiver of Predeposit and Stay of Recovery:
The appellant also sought waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery. However, since the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was dismissed due to the unexplained heavy delay, the Tribunal also dismissed the stay application. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay involved in filing the appeal, leading to the dismissal of both the application and the appeal.

In summary, the Tribunal, after considering the circumstances and evidence presented, dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to the unexplained heavy delay. Consequently, the waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery applications were also dismissed.