2019 (9) TMI 702 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 218 days in filing appeal - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay - Section 35 of CEA - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of one month then the period of 60 days from the date of the order appeal against. The delay herein was much more than the said period of 30 days. The application in hand is not sustainable for the said reason and also for the reason that in filing the appeal before this Tribunal, there has been a delay of more than a month and the reason mentioned in the application for the said delay not appears to be sufficient cause specifically in the absence of any medical records for the purpose - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Condonation of delay in filing appeal beyond the prescribed period.
- Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay.
- Sufficiency of reasons for delay in filing appeal.
- Applicability of relevant legal provisions and precedents.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal beyond the prescribed period. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which was dismissed due to a delay of 218 days. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have the power to condone the delay beyond the period of one month after the initial 60-day appeal period. Citing the decision in Singh Enterprises versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, the Tribunal held that there was no infirmity in the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal found the delay in filing the appeal before them to be more than a month without sufficient cause, especially in the absence of medical records to support the reasons provided. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application and the appeal.

In this case, the Tribunal scrutinized the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay in filing appeals. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacks the authority to condone delays beyond the specified time limits as per the relevant legal provisions. By highlighting the limitations imposed by Section 35, the Tribunal underscored the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines for filing appeals. The decision in Singh Enterprises versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur was referenced to support the Tribunal's stance on the Commissioner's jurisdiction in condoning delays.

The Tribunal also assessed the sufficiency of reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal. It was noted that the reasons presented in the application were deemed insufficient, particularly due to the absence of medical records to substantiate the claimed cause for delay. By emphasizing the need for valid and well-supported reasons for delays in legal proceedings, the Tribunal underscored the importance of maintaining transparency and accountability in the appeals process. The lack of compelling reasons, coupled with the absence of medical records, contributed to the dismissal of the application and the appeal.

Overall, the judgment delved into the applicability of relevant legal provisions and precedents in the context of condonation of delay in filing appeals. By referencing established legal principles and past decisions, the Tribunal provided a comprehensive analysis of the case, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the application and the appeal due to the extended delay and insufficient reasons provided. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines and providing valid justifications in legal proceedings to ensure fairness and efficiency in the judicial process.