2015 (11) TMI 143 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Delay of 45 days - Held that - Appellants have filed appeals before this Tribunal within 135 day i.e. 45 days after 90 days. The reason for causing further delay has been explained by the ld. Counsel that the Director of the Company told them that they are preferring appeals against the order of the Hon ble High Court before the Hon ble Apex Court in their case. As the reasons for causing delay has not been explained satisfactorily with any cogent evidence but having a casual approach. The appellants have relied in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held that time limit is fixed for filing the appeal and if there is a delay that is to be explained on day to day basis. Admittedly the appellants failed to do so therefore we do not find any merits in the applications for condonation of delay. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal, applications for condonation of delay, reasons for the delay, interpretation of the limitation period, dismissal of writ petition by the High Court, failure to explain delay satisfactorily.

Analysis:
The appellants in this case filed appeals along with applications for condonation of delay. The issue at hand was whether the delay in filing the appeals could be condoned. The show cause notices were initially issued to the appellants on a specific date, and the impugned order was passed later. The appellants did not prefer an appeal against the impugned order before the Tribunal but approached the High Court through a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the remedy against the impugned order was available before the Tribunal. The appellants claimed that they received the High Court's order at a later date, leading to a delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal.

The advocate representing the appellants argued that the delay was due to seeking advice from the Director of the co-appellant company, who suggested filing a writ petition before the High Court. The advocate relied on specific cases to support the argument that the limitation period should start from a later date. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to file appeals within the stipulated time frame despite multiple opportunities and delays. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of explaining delays on a day-to-day basis, which the appellants failed to do. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the applications for condonation of delay and dismissed them.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both the applications for condonation of delay and the appeals themselves. The decision was based on the appellants' failure to satisfactorily explain the delays in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal highlighted the need for a diligent approach in adhering to time limits for filing appeals and providing cogent evidence to support any delays adequately.