2001 (3) TMI 225 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal due to non-receipt of order copy, proof of despatch by department, delay condonation application, negligence of appellants in approaching post office for confirmation of delivery.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed an appeal against an order on 1-11-99 without mentioning the date of receiving the order copy. They claimed non-receipt of the order and filed for condonation of delay, stating they only found out about the rejection through a letter proposing recovery. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to provide proof of despatch, which was eventually produced showing despatch on 7-1-99 along with 22 other orders.

2. The appellants were given multiple opportunities to counter the evidence of despatch but kept seeking adjournments. The Counsel argued that mere despatch does not prove service as per a Madras High Court judgment and the delay should be calculated from the date of the letter informing about the rejection. The Revenue argued that the order was deemed served as it was not returned undelivered, and the appellants failed to approach the post office for confirmation within the required time.

3. The Tribunal found the Madras High Court judgment cited by the Counsel distinguishable as the present case involved evidence of despatch and delivery. The appellants' failure to approach the post office for confirmation within the specified time, despite numerous adjournments, indicated negligence. The post office's response about the preservation period of documents expiring further weakened the appellants' case. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not justified, and the condonation application was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.