2014 (7) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - delay of 73 days - delay was caused due to the Senior Manager had not placed the impugned order before the management - Held that - order was received by the applicant on 16.10.2012. Shri Ramakrishnan had submitted his resignation before receiving the order i.e. on 22.6.2012. It is noted that Shri Ramakrishnan was relieved from the service on 19.2.2013. The applicant had not taken any initiative to search the file for filing the appeal. On perusal of the impugned order, it is found that Shri Ramakrishnan appeared in personal hearing on 28.8.2012 before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is difficult to accept the averment in COD application that Shri Ramakrishnan submitted his resignation on 22.6.2012 and during this period, he was under some stress, for the reason, after filing resignation, he attended personal hearing before Commissioner (Appeals). It is not a case of misplacement of order, but, it is a clear case of gross negligence and inaction on the part of the applicant. Hence, there is no reason for condoning the delay of filing appeal. Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing appeal: The applicant filed an application seeking condonation of a 73-day delay in filing the appeal. The applicant's counsel argued that the delay was due to the Senior Manager's failure to present the impugned order to the management promptly. The Senior Manager resigned on 22.6.2012, and the order was received on 16.10.2012. The appeal was eventually filed on 4.4.2013. The applicant claimed there was no negligence on their part, attributing the delay to the Senior Manager's actions. The counsel cited a previous Tribunal decision to support their case and submitted an affidavit.

2. Condonation of delay: The Revenue's representative contended that the appeal was filed only after Departmental pursuit and highlighted the applicant's lack of initiative following the Senior Manager's resignation. The Revenue relied on a Tribunal decision stating that misplacement of papers is not sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the Central Excise Act, 1944. After considering arguments from both sides and reviewing the records, the judge found that the delay was not due to misplacement but rather gross negligence and inaction on the applicant's part. The judge noted that the Senior Manager had attended a personal hearing after submitting the resignation, indicating a lack of justification for the delay. Consequently, the judge dismissed the condonation of delay application and consequently dismissed the appeal along with the stay application.

In conclusion, the judgment denied the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing gross negligence and inaction by the applicant as reasons for the dismissal. The decision was based on the timeline of events and the lack of justification for the delay provided by the applicant.