2009 (3) TMI 665 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Condonaion of delay in filing appeal.

Analysis:
The applicants filed an application for condonation of delay of 461 days in filing the appeal. The learned Advocate representing the appellant explained the timeline of events leading to the delay. The impugned order-in-appeal was received by the applicants on 14-3-2007. They sent the memorandum of appeal with a bank draft to the Tribunal by DTDC Courier on 13-6-2007. The applicants requested early hearing of the appeal on 13th August, 2008. The Registry directed them to submit proof of filing appeal, and the DTDC Courier confirmed booking the documents for delivery to the Tribunal. However, they were unable to provide proof of delivery due to record-keeping limitations. The appeal was eventually filed on 17-9-2008. The Advocate argued that there was no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant, hence the delay should be condoned.

The learned D.R. representing the respondent contended that the applicants failed to provide evidence to prove timely filing of the appeal. He also raised doubts about the authenticity and reliability of the evidence provided by the DTDC Courier.

After hearing both sides and examining the records, it was revealed that the applicants had prepared a bank draft on 12-6-2007, which was sent with the appeal via DTDC Courier on 13-6-2007. The ICICI Bank certificate confirmed the issuance of the bank draft favoring the Assistant Registrar, Cestat, New Delhi. The DTDC Courier certificate indicated the booking of the document for delivery to the Tribunal on 13-6-2007. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to circumstances beyond the applicant's control, specifically the courier company's inability to provide proof of delivery due to record-keeping limitations. The Tribunal found that the appeal was initially sent within the stipulated period through the courier, and the delay was not due to any fault of the applicant. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the COD application was allowed.

This judgment highlights the importance of providing evidence to support claims of timely filing, the significance of external factors contributing to delays, and the Tribunal's discretion in condoning delays based on the circumstances presented.