2008 (4) TMI 648 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, unintentional delay, failure to explain delay, dismissal of appeal.

In this case, the Appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 180 days and also applied for condonation of delay, citing that the delay was due to the Dealing Assistant leaving the job without informing the management about the impugned order. The Appellant claimed the delay was unintentional and that they would suffer if the appeal was not admitted.

To verify the Appellant's claims, the Revenue submitted that the Appellant admitted receiving the order but failed to specify the date of service in the affidavit. The Revenue argued that the delay was not adequately explained, and the appeal should be dismissed.

The Appellant's representative contended that the delay was solely due to the actions of the former Dealing Assistant, who kept the Appellant unaware of the order, leading to the delay in filing the appeal.

The Revenue strongly opposed the Appellant's contentions, stating that the plea for condonation of delay was baseless and that the Appellant's approach to the law should not be sanctioned.

After hearing both sides and examining the facts, the Tribunal found that the Appellant was aware of the order since December 2006 but failed to provide a valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal. As there was no clear explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, as well as the Stay Petition and the Appeal itself.

In conclusion, the Application for condonation of delay, Stay Petition, and Appeal were all dismissed by the Tribunal due to the lack of a valid explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.