2013 (10) TMI 50 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of Delay - Held that - The Tribunal has recorded the finding that the appellant was negligent, and that he did not satisfactorily explain the delay, inasmuch as when the Advocate of the appellant argued the matter before Commissioner (Appeals), he did not give the address for communicating the order - It was the same address on which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was communicated - even in this appeal, the same address has been given - If the factory was closed and closure of the factory was the main ground on which the application for condonaton of delay was filed, the appellant should have given the correct address, atleast, in this appeal - There was no error in the order of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground of delay, which was not sufficiently explained - The grounds raised in the appeal do not raise any substantial questions of law to be considered in the appeal Decided against Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against the order dismissing application for condonation of delay under Section 35G of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a Central Excise & Custom Appeal under Section 35G against the order of the Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was little less than eleven months, and even if the date of knowledge was considered, there was a delay of 41 days. The Tribunal did not find the explanation for condoning the delay to be sufficient. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the sickness of the Managing Director, but the Tribunal concluded that the delay was deliberate as the appellant was negligent in not providing the correct address for communication of the order.

The appellant relied on various judgments to argue that the rules of limitation are meant to keep legal remedies alive for a legislatively fixed period. However, the Tribunal found that the delay in this case was deliberate and not satisfactorily explained. Under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act, an appeal must be filed within three months from the date of communication of the order, and the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay if there is a sufficient cause. In this case, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was negligent and did not satisfactorily explain the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not provide the correct address for communication of the order, despite having other employees who could have filed the appeal in time. The affidavit in the case was sworn by an Office Assistant of the appellant, indicating that there were other employees who could have been deputed to file the appeal in time. The Tribunal found that the delay was deliberate and not sufficiently explained, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal on the ground of delay, as the grounds raised did not present any substantial questions of law for consideration. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the Central Excise & Customs Appeal.