2015 (10) TMI 146 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Delay of 90days in filing appeal - Hed that - impugned order was received on 21.02.2014 and appeal was filed on 19.08.2014 and as such there is about 90 days delay in filing of the appeal. According to the appellant, their factory was closed in January, 2014 and at that time only one worker namely Shri Shiv Kant Tiwari, Incharge of the factory, used to remain in the factory, who received the order and kept the same in the Almirah and thereafter, he failed to inform the management about that order and that he also left his job on 07.08.2014 without informing the management about that order and it is only when sometime in August, 2014 somebody found the order in the factory, the appeal was filed. The reason given by the appellant for delay is not disputed by the Department. - appellant has given a reason for about 90 days delay in filing of appeal which is plausible and which is not disputed by the Department. Moreover, the delay of 90 days in filing of appeal also cannot be said to be unreasonable and such a long delay which cannot be condoned, more so, when according to the appellant s version, they discovered the order of Commissioner (Appeals) order in their employee s cupboard in sometime in August, 2014 and immediately thereafter, filed the appeal. This is not a case, when looking to the length of delay and the conduct of the appellant, it can be said that condoning the delay would result in injustice to the other side, rather not condoning the delay would result in injustice to the appellant. - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal, Condonation of delay

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed against an order dated 28.01.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which was received by the appellant on 21.02.2014. However, the appeal was filed on 19.08.2014, resulting in a delay. The appellant sought condonation of the delay, citing reasons such as the factory closure, an employee leaving without informing about the order, and the subsequent discovery of the order by other employees. The appellant argued for a liberal approach in condoning the delay, referencing legal precedents supporting such leniency.

The Department opposed the condonation of delay, arguing that the reasons provided by the appellant were not sufficient to justify the 90-day delay in filing the appeal. The Department relied on previous tribunal judgments and an Apex Court ruling to support its stance that delay due to an employee's actions, such as misplacing records or failing to inform management, should not be condoned. The Department emphasized the importance of adhering to the law of limitation and reasonable time frames in filing appeals.

Upon considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted the undisputed delay of about 90 days in filing the appeal. The appellant's explanation for the delay, including the closure of the factory and the employee's actions, was accepted as plausible and not contested by the Department. The Tribunal referenced the liberal approach advocated by the Apex Court for condonation of delay, emphasizing the need to prioritize substantial justice over technical considerations. The Tribunal concluded that the delay in this case was not unreasonable, and condoning it would not result in injustice to the other party. Therefore, the Tribunal applied the principles outlined in the Apex Court's judgment and allowed the condonation of the 90-day delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay was granted, aligning with the Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag case's principles.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision focused on balancing the need for timely appeals with the recognition of genuine reasons for delays. By applying the principles of a liberal approach to condonation of delay and prioritizing substantial justice, the Tribunal allowed the condonation of the delay in this case, emphasizing the importance of reasonable time frames and proper conduct in legal proceedings.