2013 (5) TMI 429 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 13 months and 25 days in filing the appeal - Held that - The only contention of the applicant that the concerned clerk kept the impugned order in the file and did not bring before the Management for further action. Negligence of the employee cannot be considered as sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the normal period of limitation. The applicant had not brought on record any evidence showing that the applicant had taken any action against the employee. No merit in the application for condonation of delay and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal

Analysis:
The applicant sought condonation of a delay of 13 months and 25 days in filing the appeal, attributing it to the negligence of a clerk who failed to bring the impugned order to the management's attention. The applicant also mentioned the factory's closure during the disputed period.

Legal Provision:
The Tribunal, under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, has the authority to condone delays in filing appeals beyond the normal limitation period upon showing sufficient cause for the delay.

Applicant's Contention:
The applicant argued that the delay was due to the clerk's negligence in not presenting the impugned order to the management promptly, which hindered timely action on the appeal.

Revenue's Argument:
The revenue contended that since there was no dispute about the applicant receiving the impugned order, the failure to initiate the appeal within the standard timeframe rendered the condonation application meritless.

Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal ruled that the employee's negligence could not be deemed a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal within the statutory limitation period. Notably, the applicant failed to provide any evidence of taking disciplinary action against the negligent employee. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the condonation application and dismissed it along with the stay petition and the appeal itself.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of establishing a valid and compelling reason for delay when seeking condonation, highlighting that employee negligence alone may not suffice as a justifiable cause. The ruling underscores the significance of timely compliance with procedural requirements in legal matters.