2014 (3) TMI 998 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - Held that - If the unit of Shree Precoated Steel Ltd. was taken over by M/s. Essar Steel Ltd., and Shri Pinglay was with M/s. Essar Steel Ltd., it would automatically mean that Shri Pinglay was with the firm. Further, we have observed that after Shri Hiresh Dhakan left, anybody else could have take necessary action for filing the appeal and even after Shri Pinglay re-joined in May, 2003 there was a delay of about six months in filing the appeal. Considering these facts into account, this Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. It is for these reasons, the application for condonation of delay was rejected and consequently the appeal also got rejected. In view of the clear findings recorded by us, we do not find any error committed while passing the impugned order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to change in ownership of the appellant firm and the subsequent rejection of the appeal.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the appellant filed a ROM against the Final Order passed by the Tribunal, alleging a factual error in the observation made in the order regarding the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant contended that the error stemmed from the misunderstanding that Mr. Pinglay was with the appellant firm, whereas he had actually joined M/s. Essar Steel Ltd. after it took over M/s. Shree Precoated Steel Ltd. The appellant argued that this misunderstanding led to an incorrect conclusion being drawn in the order.

The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant and analyzed the situation. It was noted that if the unit of Shree Precoated Steel Ltd. was indeed taken over by Essar Steel Ltd., and Mr. Pinglay was with Essar Steel Ltd., it would imply that he was associated with the firm. The Tribunal further observed that even after Mr. Pinglay rejoined in May 2003, there was a delay of about six months in filing the appeal, indicating a lack of satisfactory explanation for the delay. Based on these facts, the Tribunal concluded that there was no error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and subsequently dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal found no merit in the ROM application and dismissed it as devoid of merits.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to a change in ownership of the appellant firm. The Tribunal clarified the misunderstanding regarding Mr. Pinglay's association with the firm after the takeover by Essar Steel Ltd. and upheld the rejection of the appeal based on the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.