2010 (9) TMI 939 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeals.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed applications seeking condonation of a 43-day delay in filing their respective appeals. They received certified copies of the impugned orders in February 2010 but filed the appeals in June 2010.

2. The appellants' consultant, who was abroad during the relevant period, claimed that his unavailability led to the delay. He argued that the appellants had a strong case on merits against the orders by the Commissioner (Appeals) and requested the applications be allowed in the interest of justice.

3. The learned Consultant for the appellants contended that the delay should be condoned, while the learned DR vehemently opposed the applications.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. It was noted that if the consultant was unavailable when the impugned orders were received, they should have engaged another consultant. The current consultant's explanations were deemed unconvincing, as key details were missing from the applications.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both applications due to the lack of sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, leading to the dismissal of both appeals as time-barred.