2013 (10) TMI 492 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of Delay Held that - Three opportunities were given to the appellant and they did not turn up - Even after receiving the Order-in-Appeal, no steps were taken to file the appeal in time - I also note that the preamble of the order itself specifies the time limit and the authority to whom the appeal is to be filed - copies of the medical certificates produced are one from a surgeon and is not clear from the certificate that he is a specialist on the subject - The second certificate is from a doctor from different place - the condonation of delay application does not merit consideration - the offer made by the Consultant to allow condonation with cost was accepted - the applicant is directed to deposit Rs. Ten thousand only with the Commissioner Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

In this judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the issue revolves around the condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The applicant sought condonation for a 72-day delay, which the consultant argued was actually 47 days due to medical reasons. The consultant provided medical certificates to support the claim, citing a liberal approach by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases. The applicant also proposed to bear the cost of condonation. On the contrary, the learned A.R contended that the delay was unjustified as the Order-in-Appeal was received well in advance, and subsequent Supreme Court judgments emphasized the need to explain each day's delay. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had missed multiple opportunities before the Commissioner (Appeals) and failed to act promptly even after receiving the Order-in-Appeal, which clearly specified the time limit for filing the appeal. The medical certificates submitted were found lacking in clarity and specialization. Despite rejecting the condonation application, the Tribunal accepted the consultant's offer to allow condonation with a cost of Rs. Ten thousand, to be deposited within four weeks. Compliance was to be reported by a specified date, with a stay petition scheduled for the same day.

This judgment highlights the importance of justifying delays in filing appeals, especially when medical reasons are cited. The Tribunal scrutinized the medical certificates provided, emphasizing the need for clarity and specialization in such documentation. The case also underscores the significance of timely action in legal matters, as demonstrated by the Tribunal's observation of missed opportunities and delayed response by the appellant. The reference to previous Supreme Court judgments further strengthens the requirement for explaining and justifying each day's delay beyond the prescribed period. The acceptance of condonation with a cost showcases a balanced approach by the Tribunal, encouraging compliance while imposing a financial consequence for the delay. The directive for depositing the specified amount within a defined timeline demonstrates the Tribunal's commitment to ensuring accountability and adherence to legal procedures.