2010 (6) TMI 614 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of the delay - reason stated by the department for the condonation of the delay of nearly 300 days is that the officers concerned were transferred during the material period - chronology of events furnished by the SDR has given a different picture, from which it appears that a major part of the delay is on the side of the review committee - Held that - appellant has not satisfactorily explained the above delay of the appeal, COD application is rejected and consequently the appeal also gets dismissed as time-barred. The stay application also gets dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal and stay of operation of impugned order.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant sought condonation of a 300-day delay in filing the appeal due to transfer of officers and pressure of work. The chronology of events presented revealed delays by the review committee in approving the appeal proposal and signing the authorization letter. The department's sole reason for delay was officer transfers, but the review committee's significant delays were not adequately explained. The appellant's plea for equitable relief in public interest was rejected as the officer did not act in public interest. Citing case law, the respondent opposed the application, referring to instances where delays were not condoned due to lack of satisfactory explanations. The Tribunal found the department's reasons unsatisfactory, highlighting the review committee's substantial role in the delay, leading to the rejection of the condonation application and dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

Stay of Operation of Impugned Order:
The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal as time-barred also led to the dismissal of the stay application. The appellant's failure to justify the delay in filing the appeal resulted in the rejection of both applications. The stay application was not considered separately but was dismissed along with the appeal due to the time-barred nature of the case. The Tribunal's decision was based on the unsatisfactory reasons provided by the appellant for the delay, emphasizing the review committee's responsibility in the delay rather than solely attributing it to officer transfers. The rejection of the condonation application automatically led to the dismissal of the appeal and the stay application, concluding the matter before the Tribunal.