2016 (6) TMI 196 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - 235 days - applicant was totally unaware about the non-filing of the appeal as the matter was being looked after by the Corporate Office at Mumbai and also the concerned person dealing with the Excise matter left the organization in November 2014 - Held that - where the delay caused in filing the present appeal is not deliberate and intentional and has been caused on account of the circumstances that applicants were not aware of the non-filing of the appeal before the Hon ble CESTAT and it was only during the last week of July 2015 that the applicants came to know that no appeal had been preferred against the Order-in-Appeal after receiving a call from the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer requiring them to furnish the proof of payment under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act and thereafter the matter was brought to the notice of the Management at Bangalore. Therefore we condone the delay subject to appellants paying cost of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) within a period of six weeks from today and submitting the compliance report. - Delay condoned

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to unforeseen circumstances.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay of 235 days in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to the departure of the Senior Manager responsible for handling appeals without informing the management, resulting in unawareness about the non-filing of the appeal. The appellant argued that the delay was unintentional and sought a liberal view for condonation.

2. The appellant's counsel cited precedents like Kirmani Fabricators Vs. CCE and Pepco Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India to support the claim for condonation based on the principle that a pragmatic approach furthering the cause of justice should be adopted. The judgments emphasized that genuine reasons, such as the responsible person leaving the job without notifying the appellant, should be considered sufficient grounds for condonation.

3. The AR contended that the reasons provided were inadequate for condoning such a significant delay. However, the Tribunal considered that the delay was not deliberate or intentional but caused by unforeseen circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay on the condition that the appellant pays a cost of ?10,000 within six weeks and submits a compliance report, with the deadline for the cost deposit set for a specific date.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment regarding the condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to unforeseen circumstances, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision to grant condonation subject to the specified conditions.