2016 (4) TMI 1330 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 651 days in filing the appeal - appellant argued that the said OIA dt 28/12/12 was received by Sh. A. Banerjee, Executive of the appellant on 23/1/2013. That Sh. A. Banerjee did not bring the OIA dt 28/12/12 to the notice of the management and retired on 1/2/2013 - Held that - No affidavit of Sh. A. Banerjee , employee of the appellant has been filed in these proceeding to justify the delay. Subsequent searches in the office records made the appellant recover the said OIA dt 18/12/12. The reasons for delay of 657 days have not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant - delay cannot be condoned - COD Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay of 651 days in filing the appeal against OIA No. 31/KOL-V/2012 dt 28/12/12.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a MA (COD) seeking condonation of a 651-day delay in filing the appeal against OIA No. 31/KOL-V/2012 dt 28/12/12. The appellant's representative argued that the OIA was received by an employee who failed to bring it to the management's attention before retiring. The appellant only became aware of the order through a departmental letter in 2014, leading to the discovery of the OIA in the office records. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the employee's actions should bind the appellant, emphasizing the lack of an affidavit from the employee denying knowledge of the OIA. The Tribunal noted the undisputed receipt of the OIA in January 2013, the absence of an affidavit from the employee, and the delayed discovery of the OIA in the office records. Despite the appellant's explanations, the Tribunal found the reasons for the delay inadequately justified. Consequently, the MA (COD) was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

This judgment underscores the importance of timely filing appeals and the responsibility of an employer for the actions of its employees. The Tribunal considered the circumstances surrounding the delayed filing, including the employee's failure to inform the management about the received order. The absence of a sworn statement from the employee regarding the notification to the management weakened the appellant's case. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the appellant's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay, despite subsequent efforts to locate the order in the office records. The ruling highlights the need for diligence in managing legal matters and the consequences of delays in the appellate process.