Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 344 - AT - Central ExciseApplication for condonation - Appellant had submitted that the order in original was received somewhere on 26.11.2010 - Appeal was filed on 28.01.2011 -Commissioner in her order has observed that appellant has stated to have received the impugned order in original on 23.11.2010 - Subsequently in Para 4, she says that the appeal was filed after the delay of eight days. The exact quantum of delay is not available and what we have is only three figures; 2, 5 and 8 days. Nevertheless, the delay is only maximum of five days even if it is assumed that order was received by the appellants on 23.11.2010, the delay could have been condoned by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - Since she has not found it fit, consider it appropriate that the delay in filing of appeal has to be condoned and accordingly condone the same and remand the matter to learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter, treating the appeal as filed in time.
Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, involved the dismissal of an appeal by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) due to unsatisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant had filed a stay petition against the recovery of the amount, which was allowed as the issue was related to the condonation of delay. The Tribunal decided to deal with the appeal itself, as the delay was not on merits but due to a lack of sufficient cause. In the case, the appellant had initially stated that the order in original was received on 26.11.2010, and the appeal was filed on 28.01.2011, resulting in a delay of two days. However, the Commissioner observed discrepancies in the dates mentioned by the appellant, noting figures of 2, 5, and 8 days as possible delays. The Tribunal found that even if the delay was up to five days, it could have been condoned by the Commissioner. Despite the lack of explanation on how the excise clerk forgot about the order, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to condone the delay and remand the matter back to the Commissioner to decide the appeal as filed in time. The Tribunal disposed of the stay application and the appeal in this manner, emphasizing the need for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.
|