2014 (3) TMI 411 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Delay of 50 days in appeal - appellant was in bonafide belief that the appeal filed by the main appellant is sufficient to challenge the impugned order and another appeal need not be filed. - After realizing their mistake, they filed appeal along with an application for condonation of delay - Held that - Following decision of Sri Vasavi Agencies vs. CCE Visakhapatnam reported in 2007 (11) TMI 544 - CESTAT, BANGALORE - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Application for stay, Condonation of Delay in filing the appeal

Application for Stay:
The appellant filed an appeal along with an application for stay and Condonation of Delay in filing the appeal. The reason cited for the delay was the belief that the main appellant's appeal was sufficient to challenge the impugned order, hence no separate appeal was filed. The learned A.R. opposed this, stating that each party must file appeals separately. The Tribunal referred to past cases and found the reason for delay unsatisfactory, leading to the dismissal of the application for Condonation of Delay and consequently the appeal and stay application.

Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appellant, believing the main appellant's appeal was enough, failed to file a separate appeal in time. The learned A.R. argued that appeals must be filed separately, as per the impugned order. Citing precedents, the A.R. contended that the reason for delay was not sustainable. The Tribunal, considering the submissions, noted similarities with past cases where delay was not condoned. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for Condonation of Delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and stay application.

---