2013 (5) TMI 138 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - delay by 624 days and 593 days for both the appeals - Held that - Reasons stated in the affidavit do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of the heavy delay of the appeals. The affidavit filed by the CMD of the company does not disclose any specific health problem. It generally makes references to ailments and health-related issues. No authenticated medical certificate in proof of any ailment serious enough to incapacitate the appellant is found amongst the medical records filed with the COD applications. Thus the appeals should not have been delayed because of the CMD s preoccupation with other works. COD application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeals, Condonation of delay

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore dealt with the issues of delay in filing appeals and the condonation of such delay. The appeals in question, E/1490 & 1491/2012, were delayed by 624 days and 593 days respectively. The appellant filed applications for condonation of the delay, citing financial difficulties, health issues of the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director (CMD), and lack of awareness about pending orders. The affidavit submitted by the CMD highlighted financial crunch, health problems, and preoccupation with other matters as reasons for the delay in filing the appeals.

The appellant's counsel presented the CMD's health issues and financial troubles as justifications for the delay, supported by medical reports. However, the Superintendent (AR) contended that these reasons were insufficient for condonation of the significant delay. It was argued that the Vice-President of the company had been involved in the previous stages of litigation and could have initiated the appeal process in the CMD's absence. The Tribunal noted that the medical records submitted did not sufficiently prove the CMD's incapacity to file appeals beyond September 2010. The lack of a specific health problem in the affidavit and the absence of a valid explanation for the delay were crucial factors in the Tribunal's decision.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. The CMD's preoccupation with other matters was not deemed a valid reason for the delay, especially when the Vice-President had handled lower-level litigation. The Tribunal found the condonation of delay applications devoid of merit and unsustainable. As a result, both applications for condonation of delay were dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeals and corresponding stay applications. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing valid explanations for delays in legal proceedings and highlighted the need for clear evidence to support claims of incapacity or inability to act promptly.