2005 (4) TMI 527 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Grounds for condonation, Communication of order, Change in factory status, Address communication

In this case, the main issue revolves around the delay of 73 days in filing the appeal by the appellants. The impugned Order-in-Appeal was passed on a specific date, and the appellants claimed that the order was communicated to them at a later date. The appellants provided grounds for condonation of the delay, stating that the copy of the order was received by their security guard at the factory premises, who later informed the Director about it. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the affidavits submitted by the security guard and the Director. The Tribunal noted that the security guard's affidavit seemed to be prepared to justify the delay, as the stamp paper used for the affidavit was purchased by the Director before the security guard's return from his village, raising questions about the authenticity of the statements made.

Another issue raised by the appellants was the status of their factory, which they claimed was closed four years prior. However, there was no evidence to suggest that any change in address was communicated to the Department for official communication purposes. Despite the appellants' assertion that the factory was closed, it was established that the copy of the Order-in-Original was indeed received by the Director at the factory premises, indicating that the Department sent correspondence to the known address.

After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Tribunal concluded that there were insufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the condonation application and subsequently dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The decision was made based on the lack of valid justifications for the delay provided by the appellants and the discrepancies found in the affidavits submitted. The judgment highlights the importance of timely filing appeals and the need for accurate and reliable communication of orders and address changes to avoid procedural complications in legal matters.