2019 (7) TMI 1298 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 2743 days in filing appeal - reasonable reason to condone such delay or not - HELD THAT - To a pointed query it is not denied that notice of the appeal filed by the department had been received by the appellant in the year 2010 itself, therefore, mere fresh receipt of the notice of the date of hearing issued by the Tribunal would not constitute a sufficient ground at all to urge that fresh cause of action had accrued so as to condone the previous delay since the year 2010 upon taking up a fresh decision to file an appeal - the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in not condoning such a huge delay of 2743 days does not suffer from any infirmity. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the present appeal which is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act seeking quashing of Tribunal's order.
- Demand of duty for short payment for specific periods.
- Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay.
- Argument of bonafide delay by the appellant.
- Consideration of delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by a manufacturer under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, seeking to quash the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Corrugated Boxes, received show cause notices from the Central Excise department for short payment of duty for specific periods. The adjudicating authority dropped the demand, but the respondent-department filed an appeal which was partially decided in their favor by the Commissioner (Appeals). Both the department and the appellant then filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeal on the grounds of delay, with the appellant seeking condonation of a significant delay of 2743 days.

The appellant argued that the decision not to file an appeal initially was reconsidered upon receiving notice of the department's appeal before the Tribunal in 2017, leading to the delayed filing. The Court, after hearing the appellant's counsel, disagreed with the argument of bonafide delay. It was noted that the appellant had received notice of the department's appeal back in 2010, and the mere receipt of a notice for the date of hearing from the Tribunal in 2017 did not constitute a valid ground to condone the extensive delay. The Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's decision to not condone the delay of 2743 days, as the reasons provided were deemed sufficient.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that no question of law, let alone a substantial one, arose for determination in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the findings regarding the delay in filing the appeal and the lack of merit in the arguments presented.