2009 (8) TMI 1010 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The applicant filed a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of a 5-month delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The applicant claimed that the delay was due to receiving wrong advice from their advocate. The advocate initially opined that there was no need to file an appeal, but upon seeking a second opinion from another advocate in Chennai, it was advised that the case was suitable for appeal. The applicant then filed the condonation application along with the appeal, arguing that the issue on merits favored them, especially regarding the penalty under section 11AC of the CE Act. The applicant relied on legal precedents to support their case, emphasizing their bona fides as recognized by the Commissioner (Appeals) and citing relevant court decisions and Tribunal rulings.

The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the applicant had approached the advocate belatedly, without providing a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Tribunal carefully considered the entire issue and noted that the applicant approached the advocate almost two months after the deadline for filing the appeal. The advocate's letter dated 15-6-09 clearly indicated that the applicant visited the advocate only on 27-3-09, failing to justify the delay in seeking legal advice. The Tribunal found the applicant's claims of immediate action upon receiving the Order-In-Original (OIA) unsubstantiated, leading to the conclusion that the applicant did not establish a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal filed by the applicant/appellant.

In the final judgment pronounced on 19-8-2009, the Tribunal held that the applicant's failure to provide justifiable reasons for the delay in approaching the advocate, despite a significant period passing since the receipt of the order, led to the dismissal of the condonation application and the subsequent appeal. The decision highlighted the importance of timely legal actions and the necessity to establish valid reasons for seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings.