2012 (10) TMI 819 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 405 days - rejection of the assessees refund claims - submission of the assessee that against the impugned orders challenged in the present appeals, the assessee preferred Writ Petition which stood dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy before the Tribunal, they submit that the delay was not deliberate but only due to above reasons Held that - Assessee has not put forth bona fide reasons for condonation of delay and further the delay could easily be avoided by the assessee acting with normal care and caution - sufficient cause has not been made out for condoning the delay - COD applications dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals against rejection of refund claims.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi heard applications for condonation of delay of 405 days in preferring appeals against the rejection of refund claims by the Assistant Commissioner. The claims were rejected on the ground that input services were not eligible. The Additional Commissioner's order disallowing Cenvat credit on services received by the EOU unit was set aside by the lower Appellate Authority, making the assessee eligible for the refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals stating that the rejection of refund claims by the Assistant Commissioner was not challenged. The assessee argued that since the Additional Commissioner's order was not set aside, filing appeals seemed futile until then. The delay was attributed to pending Writ Petition before the High Court, which was dismissed, directing the assessee to approach the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that each aggrieved order must be challenged within the statutory period. The Tribunal cited the case of Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh to emphasize that delay alone is not sufficient for condonation; the conduct of parties and reasons for delay are also crucial.

The Tribunal highlighted that the Hon'ble High Court did not condone the delay in filing appeals against the orders challenged. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that delay should have a satisfactory explanation for condonation. The principles enunciated in the case of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom were discussed, emphasizing that the sufficiency of explanation, not just the length of delay, is crucial. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay could have been avoided with normal care and caution, indicating a lack of bona fide reasons for the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal held that sufficient cause was not established for condoning the delay, leading to the dismissal of the condonation applications and, consequently, the appeals as barred by limitation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of bona fide reasons for the delay in filing the appeals against the rejection of refund claims. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing a satisfactory explanation for delay, in addition to considering the conduct of parties and whether the delay could have been avoided. The Tribunal's decision was in line with legal principles governing the condonation of delay in filing appeals.