2012 (4) TMI 524 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Delay in receipt of order - Held that - appellant is a CHA and it is the duty of the CHA to educate assessees in respect of the transactions entered with the Customs Authorities for import or export of the goods. It is common knowledge that he is aware of the procedures which are to be followed with the department. The reasoning given by the proprietor of the appellant which is reproduced in the form of affidavit, does not instil any confidence in his argument that the delay occurred is inadvertent. Nothing is mentioned as to when the employee left the services of the appellant in May 2010 and also as regards procedure of taking over the charge from him. We are unable to agree with the reasoning given by the appellant for seeking condonation of delay - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
Delay of 365 days in filing the appeal before the Bench.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of a 365-day delay in filing the appeal. The appellant's counsel explained that the delay was due to the appellant's lack of knowledge about the order-in-original imposing a penalty of Rs. 17.25 lakhs until January 18, 2011. The appellant claimed that they promptly filed the appeal on February 11, 2011, within one month of becoming aware of the order. The appellant also mentioned that an ex-employee, who left in May 2010, failed to inform them about the penalty earlier due to fear. The appellant affirmed that they only learned about the penalty on January 18, 2011, upon receiving a letter from the Superintendent. The appellant argued for the condonation of the delay based on these circumstances.

The respondent, represented by the ld. SDR, contended that a Customs House Agent (CHA) like the appellant should be well-versed in the law and procedures for filing appeals. The respondent argued that the appellant, being a CHA, should have been aware of the necessary procedures and should have educated the assessees accordingly. The respondent highlighted that the reasoning provided by the appellant, as detailed in the affidavit, did not inspire confidence in the claim that the delay was inadvertent. The respondent pointed out the lack of information regarding the employee's departure in May 2010 and the procedure for handing over responsibilities. The respondent opposed the condonation of delay based on these arguments.

Upon considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal noted that the appellant, being a CHA, is expected to be knowledgeable about the procedures involved in dealings with Customs Authorities. The Tribunal found that the reasons presented by the appellant for the delay did not convincingly demonstrate that the delay was inadvertent. The Tribunal observed that crucial details, such as the employee's departure in May 2010 and the transfer of responsibilities, were not adequately addressed in the appellant's explanation. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, leading to the rejection of the stay application and appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal, comprising Shri M.V. Ravindran and B.S.V. Murthy, JJ., rejected the appellant's request for condonation of the 365-day delay in filing the appeal, ultimately resulting in the rejection of the stay application and appeal before the CESTAT, Ahmedabad.