2014 (10) TMI 233 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - delay of 265 days in filing the appeal - Held that - admitted two partners were looking after the firm even if we ignore the DR submission that it was actually the husband of one of the partners who were running the factory. Even if we accept that one of the partners was not in a position to act, admittedly the other partner was. It has not been shown to us that Mrs. Shikka Agarwal was continuously on bed throughout her pregnancy period and was in such a bad shape so as not to take steps for filing of the appeal - Mrs. Sikha Agarwal gave birth to child in December, 2012 where appeal stands filed in June, 2013 that is almost after six months after the delivery. The appellant s plea that mother was required to look after the child so as not to take steps to file the same in time cannot be held to be sufficient and justifiable reasons. We find the delay to be huge delay. - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal based on the grounds of pregnancy and childbirth.

Analysis:
The appellant sought condonation of a 265-day delay in filing the appeal. The Order-in-Appeal was passed on 13-4-2012, received by the appellants on 26-5-2012, and the last date of filing was in August 2012. The appellant, a partnership concern, explained the delay was due to one of the partners being pregnant and giving birth in December 2012, causing her to be occupied with the infant. However, it was revealed that the factory was operational during this period with staff in place. The Departmental Representative (DR) mentioned that the factory was managed by the husband of the partner during this time. The appellant cited precedents where delays were condoned due to illness of key personnel, but the Tribunal noted that in those cases, the illness was of the sole proprietor or the person managing the company. In this case, both partners were involved in the firm's operations. Even if one partner was indisposed, the other partner could have taken action. The Tribunal found the delay to be substantial, as the appeal was filed six months after the childbirth. The plea that the mother needed to care for the child was deemed insufficient justification for the delay. Consequently, the Condonation of Delay application was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of demonstrating a valid and justifiable reason for seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The Tribunal scrutinized the circumstances surrounding the delay, considering the operational status of the business during the claimed period of incapacity. The decision highlights that the mere existence of personal reasons, such as pregnancy and childcare responsibilities, may not suffice as grounds for condoning a significant delay in legal proceedings. The judgment underscores the need for parties to provide compelling and verifiable explanations for delays to receive favorable consideration from the Tribunal.