2007 (4) TMI 599 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, penalty, interest

Delay in filing appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal beyond the statutory period, with the impugned order received on 10-10-2006 and the appeal filed on 21-2-2007, missing the due date of 9-1-2007. The delay was explained in a vague manner in the application, lacking cogent reasons. The respondent argued that the appellant showed negligence in being vigilant and conscious of their rights, as evident from the application. The record revealed that the appellant did not specify the number of days of delay clearly in the petition for condonation of delay, only vaguely mentioning some delay. The appellant's attitude, as mentioned in the record, indicated a lack of regard for the law, with the order being misplaced and found later. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely appeals for justice and the necessity for litigants to show respect for the law. The appellant failed to establish their bona fides or non-deliberate delay, leading to the dismissal of the Delay Condonation petition and the appeal itself.

Condonation of delay:
The Tribunal found that the appellant did not deserve consideration for condonation of delay due to their lack of vigilance and failure to prove bona fides for the delay. The appellant's vague explanations and negligent attitude towards the legal process contributed to the dismissal of the Delay Condonation petition. The Tribunal stressed the need for litigants to demonstrate a clear case for relief when seeking condonation of delay, which the appellant failed to do in this case.

Penalty and interest:
The duty involvement was Rs. 50,905.00, with an equal amount of penalty and interest. The respondent argued for the dismissal of the appeal based on the delayed filing and lack of valid reasons for condonation of delay. The Tribunal considered the penalty and interest in conjunction with the delay issue, ultimately dismissing the appeal due to the appellant's failure to meet the necessary criteria for condonation of delay and demonstrating a lack of regard for legal procedures.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Delay Condonation petition, the appeal, and the Stay Petition due to the appellant's negligence, lack of vigilance, and failure to establish bona fides for the delay in filing the appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely appeals, respect for the law, and the need for litigants to provide valid reasons for seeking condonation of delay to receive consideration from the Tribunal.