2014 (7) TMI 1024 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution - advocate was preoccupied before Sales Tax Authority, Bangalore and he informed his clerk to take instructions from this Tribunal who had not taken proper steps. Held that - there is sufficient reason to recall order dt. 6.6.2012. - the ex-parte order dt. 6.6.2012 is recalled and the COD applications and the appeals are restored to its original numbers. Condonation of delay of 413 days - Held that - the reason for delay is mainly for obtaining requisite departmental approval for filing the appeal from the higher authorities. It is seen that the delay is caused for taking approval from higher authorities for 413 days which cannot be accepted as sufficient reason for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the COD applications filed by the appellant are rejected. - Conononatin of delay dened - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Common issue involving delay in filing appeals

Issue 1: Recall of ex-parte order
The judgment involved a common issue concerning the recall of an ex-parte order dated 6.6.2012, where the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution. The learned advocate representing the applicant informed the Tribunal that he was preoccupied before the Sales Tax Authority, Bangalore, on the mentioned date, resulting in the non-prosecution of the appeals. After considering the advocate's submission, the Tribunal found sufficient reason to recall the order. Consequently, the ex-parte order was recalled, and the COD applications along with the appeals were restored to their original numbers.

Issue 2: Condonation of delay
The second issue revolved around the condonation of a delay of 413 days in filing the appeals. The applicant cited the reason for the delay as the time taken to obtain departmental approval for filing the appeal from higher authorities. The Tribunal noted that the delay was primarily due to obtaining approval from higher authorities and that 413 days for this process was not deemed a sufficient reason for condonation of delay. As a result, the COD applications filed by the appellant were rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI addressed the recall of an ex-parte order due to non-prosecution and the rejection of condonation of delay applications based on the reason provided for the delay in filing the appeals. The decision highlighted the importance of valid reasons for seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings.