2016 (8) TMI 886 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - one year 10 months - Manager remained busy in re-allocation/shifting of their factory to Ambernath, Maharashtra - Held that - it is found that even though the order was communicated to the appellant immediately two days after passing of the order, probably by hand delivery, and issues of similar nature of earlier period as claimed had been under litigation, the appellant failed to submit the appeal within the prescribed statutory period nor within a reasonable period, thereafter. The reason for delay in filing in the appeal as stated in the application as well as in the affidavit, cannot be accepted as sufficient cause warranting condonation of the inordinate delay inasmuch as the same is marred by gross negligent approach on the part of the applicant. Therefore, delay cannot be condoned. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of a delay of 665 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reason provided for the delay was the busy schedule of the Manager due to the re-allocation/shifting of their factory to another location. The appellant contended that the delay was unintentional and referred to pending appeals on similar issues before the Tribunal.

2. The Revenue argued that the delay was due to sheer negligence on the part of the appellant, citing a principle established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a previous case. The Revenue contended that the delay should not be condoned based on the explanation provided by the appellant and an affidavit submitted by the Manager.

3. The Tribunal noted that the order was communicated promptly to the appellant, but the appeal was not filed within the statutory period or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Tribunal found the reason for the delay, as stated by the appellant, to be insufficient, attributing it to gross negligence on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal distinguished the decisions cited by the appellant, stating that they were under different circumstances. Relying on the principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a previous case, the Tribunal held that gross negligence cannot be considered a sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of 665 days.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal due to the failure to file within the prescribed statutory period. The decision was pronounced in court, upholding the rejection of the application and the dismissal of the appeal.