2009 (5) TMI 633 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - condonation of delay of 86 days in filing appeal - Limitation - Held that - apart from the written submissions, the appellants have failed to produce any material which could disclose sufficient cause for delay. There is basic difference between the submissions and statements of facts - COD application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Condonation of delay in filing appeals due to misplacement of case file by the counsel leading to the failure to establish sufficient cause for delay.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with applications for condonation of delay of 86 days for filing appeals, where common questions of law and facts were heard together. The delay was attributed to the misplacement of the case file by the counsel's clerk. However, the applications lacked crucial details such as when the impugned order was received, forwarded, or when the misplacement was noticed, thus failing to establish sufficient cause for delay.

The written submissions provided contradictory information, revealing negligence and lethargy on the part of the appellants and their counsel. The submissions indicated that the case file was with the counsel until January 4, 2009, despite the claim of misplacement leading to the delay. This inconsistency raised doubts about the genuine reasons for the delay and the appellants' diligence in pursuing the appeals within the limitation period.

The judgment emphasized the importance of producing necessary evidence, such as affidavits, to establish relevant facts. While the submissions outlined a series of events causing the delay, they ultimately pointed towards carelessness and failure to pursue the remedy expeditiously, rather than a genuine cause for the delay. The court noted that discretionary relief is not available to litigants who fail to act diligently and dismissed the applications for condonation of delay.

In conclusion, due to the lack of sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals, the applications for condonation of delay, stay, and the appeals themselves were dismissed. The judgment underscored the necessity for litigants to demonstrate valid reasons for delay and maintain vigilance in pursuing legal remedies within the prescribed timelines to avail of discretionary relief.