2014 (3) TMI 753 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Held that - matter of litigation where certain proceedings are going on before different authorities, it was required to keep the relevant records in a manner to locate them without loss of any time. Moreover, once the appellant came to know on 23rd September, 2012 from the Superintendent that their appeal has been dismissed, they were at liberty to approach the Department and ask for a copy of the records available if any, with the Department so as to enable them to file the appeal as early as possible but I do not find any such attempt made by the appellant. They had not addressed even any letter to the Department to hand over a copy of the order-in-Appeal. I do not find that the reasons given for the delay in this case are the sufficient cause. Though delay is stated to be due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the appellant did not show a diligence and commitment in prosecuting the matter in time. - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of a 338-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The advocate for the appellant provided a detailed chronology of events, explaining that the delay was due to the failure of an employee, Mr. Ajit Roy, to hand over the impugned order to the Corporate Taxation Department before his contract ended in April 2012. The appellant only became aware of the dismissal of their appeal in September 2012. It took them until June 2013 to locate the relevant papers, which were then promptly handed over to the advocate, and the appeal was filed within 10 days. The appellant attributed the delay to Mr. Roy's ailments and the old, hard-to-trace records. The Revenue's representative argued that the six-month delay in locating the papers showed negligence on the appellant's part.

The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments and cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the need for a plausible and acceptable explanation for condoning delays, especially when dealing with government entities. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was informed of the dismissal of their appeal in September 2012 but took a significant amount of time to retrieve the necessary documents. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not take proactive steps to obtain a copy of the order-in-appeal from the Department after being notified of the dismissal. Despite the appellant's claims of unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties causing the delay, the Tribunal concluded that there was a lack of diligence and commitment in prosecuting the matter promptly.

In light of the facts presented and considering the Supreme Court's guidance on condoning delays, the Tribunal held that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal itself was also dismissed.