2012 (7) TMI 415 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 1035 days - applicant contended that their factory was closed since 2006 and their Sr. General Manager who was looking after the Central Excise matters left the company and there was no one competent to look after the excise matter - Managerial staff of the company had left the company after the closer of the production Held that - There is no denial of the fact that they were received by the applicant - salary was paid by the applicant company and the Central Excise duty were being shown as liability - Therefore the contention is that they were not aware of the liability and it has prevented them in not filing the appeal is not correct - applications is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal; Condonation of delay; Sufficient cause for delay.

Analysis:
The applicants filed applications for condonation of delay of 1035 days in filing the appeal. They argued that due to their factory closure since 2006 and lack of competent staff, they could not ascertain the exact date of receipt of the order. They claimed the delay was non-intentional due to prevailing circumstances, including financial struggles and liabilities. The Central Excise Authority was criticized for not taking effective steps to realize the dues earlier. However, the respondent argued that the delay was inexcusable as the impugned orders were received on 8/01/08, but the appeal was filed only on 7/2/11, resulting in a delay of 1035 days. The respondent highlighted that the applicants failed to provide evidence regarding the absence of staff to handle excise matters and pointed out that the company was paying salaries and showing Central Excise duty as a liability in balance sheets, indicating awareness of the dues.

The Tribunal noted that the delay was undisputed, and the argument that the appeal was filed only after the return of the General Manager (Commercial) was not sufficient cause for the delay. It was emphasized that the appeal should have been filed within three months from the date of communication of the impugned order, as per Section 35B. The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the stay petitions and appeals were also disposed of accordingly. The Tribunal held that in the absence of a valid reason for the delay, the application was not maintainable, leading to its dismissal.