2006 (2) TMI 560 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, sufficiency of reasons for delay

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, the issue revolves around a delay of four months and twenty-one days in filing an appeal. The appellant provided reasons for the delay, citing a combination of house construction, shifting, and personal illness as causes. The appellant submitted a medical certificate indicating medical treatment and bed rest from 1-3-2004 to 30-4-2004. However, the tribunal noted that the impugned order was received in October 2003, and the appeal should have been filed by January 2004. The appeal was eventually filed on 4-6-2004. The tribunal found that the explanation for the delay was insufficient as the consultant's preoccupation with house construction lacked evidence, and the affidavit did not address the delay adequately. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal and the stay application as time-barred.

The tribunal, comprising Shri P.G. Chacko and P. Karthikeyan, JJ., after hearing both parties and considering their submissions, concluded that the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal were not satisfactory. Despite the medical certificate indicating the consultant's illness and bed rest, the tribunal found the explanation lacking, especially regarding the period before the medical treatment. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant's affidavit did not sufficiently address the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the appeal and the stay application as time-barred.