2016 (5) TMI 1342 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - maintainability of appeal - due to negligence on the part of the clerk concerned and also to the fact that the said clerk is attending their work on part time basis the appeal could not be filed within the statutory time limit - Held that - The cause for such delay is attributed to the negligence of the clerk of the applicant. It is settled law as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that the delay due to negligence cannot be condoned especially when the statute has prescribed the time-limit for filing the appeals - delay not condoned - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal due to negligence of the clerk.

Analysis:
The case involved an application seeking condonation of a 413-day delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The applicant attributed the delay to the negligence of a part-time clerk responsible for the matter. The applicant argued that they had a strong case on merits, but the delay was due to the clerk's negligence and part-time work status. On the other hand, the Revenue's Authorized Representative contended that a delay of over a year was inordinate, especially considering the statutory time limit of three months for filing an appeal before the Tribunal.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments and examination of the records, the Tribunal noted that the impugned Order-in-Appeal was issued on 30-7-2014, and the appeal should have been filed by 7-11-2014. However, the appeal was filed only on 23-12-2015, causing a delay of 413 days. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents, including judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing that delays due to negligence cannot be condoned when statutory time limits are prescribed for filing appeals.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the appeal could not be condoned. Consequently, the application seeking condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the rejection of the appeal itself. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court, finalizing the decision.