2012 (10) TMI 934 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - consultant who had appeared on behalf of the party before Commissioner(Appeals) at Guntur handed over the orders and connected papers to the concerned persons of the applicant dealing with the matter and the said concerned person dealing with the matter kept the papers with him and totally forgot to bring it to the notice of the applicant - Held that - The gist of the above averments is that the concerned person dealing with the matter in the appellant s office received the orders and kept the same with him and forgot to hand it over to the appellant. The identity of the concerned person dealing with the matter is not forthcoming. The appellant is a corporate entity and hence the concerned person dealing with the matter must be an employee of the company. The knowledge of the concerned person regarding the impugned orders is the knowledge of the company itself and, therefore, the plea that the appellant-company did not notice the existence of the appellate Commissioner s orders for a long time even after its employee received those orders is unacceptable. This apart, the averment that the consultant who was entrusted with the work of filing of the appeals met with an accident and suffered fracture in his hand etc. is not supported by any evidence. In the result, there is no cogent explanation of the delay of 69 days involved in the filing of the appeals - Conditional denied.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeals.

Analysis:
1. The applications filed by the appellant sought condonation of a 69-day delay in filing the appeals. The appellant claimed that the delay was due to their consultant, who had the necessary documents but forgot to bring them to the appellant's notice promptly. The consultant later suffered an accident, further delaying the process.

2. The learned Superintendent (AR) opposed the applications, arguing that the appellant's explanation was unsatisfactory. He contended that the delay was not justified based on the provided reasons.

3. The Tribunal carefully considered the explanations provided in the condonation of delay applications and the submissions made by the Superintendent (AR). It was noted that the appellant, being a corporate entity, should have had knowledge of the orders received by their employee. The claim regarding the consultant's accident was found unsupported by any evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal found the explanations inadequate and dismissed the condonation of delay applications, leading to the dismissal of the appeals as time-barred.