2014 (1) TMI 370 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay Delay of 175 days Held that - The plea stands taken by the appellant in a very casual manner without making any serious efforts to explain such huge delay of 175 days - Even if the appellant is not in a position to explain each day delay but he is expected to, at-least, advance sufficient reasons and bonafide conduct for condonation of delay - sufficient cause is required to be applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case available in each case there was no justifiable reasons to condone the delay - The condonation of delay is rejected Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay

Delay in filing appeal:
The judgment addresses the delay of 175 days in filing the appeal. The appellant did not dispute receiving the impugned order-in-appeal dated 6.6.2011, and the normal period of limitation expired around 6.9.2011. However, the appeal was filed on 27.2.2012, resulting in the delay. The appellant claimed that their Chartered Accountant had the order but did not inform the management before leaving the job. The appellant failed to provide the Chartered Accountant's name or details of his departure, presenting the explanation for the delay in a casual manner. The judgment emphasizes the need for sufficient reasons and bona fide conduct for condonation of delay, citing the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' in previous decisions. The tribunal found no justifiable reasons to condone the delay and consequently rejected the condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the stay petition and appeal on the ground of limitation.

Condonation of delay:
The judgment highlights the importance of providing valid reasons and demonstrating genuine conduct when seeking condonation of delay. It stresses the need to interpret 'sufficient cause' in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical, and liberal manner based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, the appellant's explanation for the delay was deemed insufficient, leading to the rejection of the condonation of delay. The tribunal's decision to dismiss the stay petition and appeal was based on the lack of justifiable reasons for condoning the delay, emphasizing the significance of meeting the standards set by higher authorities in similar cases.

---