2018 (3) TMI 461 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of 860 days in preferring the appeal - case of appellant is that the delay occurred for the reason that the employee, who was managing the affairs of the company had left the company without informing the details with regard to the receipt of the Order-in-Appeal - Held that - Though it is submitted that the delay occurred due to the reason that an employee named Shri Sriranjan Deshpande left the office of the appellant, the affidavit does not mention the name of this employee. The name of the employee does not find mention in the application for condonation of delay also. When the Director of the Company is not able to affirm that a particular employee is responsible for the delay, the submission made is not acceptable. It is also noteworthy that the appellant does not have a case that they did not receive the copy of the impugned order that was despatched from the department. There is willful laches and negligence on the part of the appellant in filing appeal before the Tribunal within prescribed time - there is no reason to condone the delay - application for COD dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal.

In this case, the appellant filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 860 days in preferring the appeal. The appellant argued that they became aware of the impugned Order-in-Appeal only during an audit in 2016, despite it being passed in 2014. The appellant claimed that an employee managing the company affairs had left without informing them about the order. The appellant also stated that the issue in appeal had been decided in their favor previously. However, the respondent opposed the application, alleging negligence and willful laches on the part of the appellant. The respondent pointed out that the impugned order had been dispatched to the appellant in 2014, and thus, the appellant should have been aware of the proceedings. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellant was aware of the appeal pending before the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the delay was solely due to the employee leaving without notice. The Tribunal concluded that there was willful laches and negligence on the part of the appellant in filing the appeal within the prescribed time. As a result, the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as well.