2001 (6) TMI 461 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Justification for delay provided by the appellants.
3. Merits of the case and penalty imposition.
4. Adequacy of reasons for delay.

Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal in question arose from an Order-in-Appeal where the Commissioner dismissed the appeal due to a delay of one month and fifteen days. The appellants sought condonation of delay, citing it as unintentional. However, the Commissioner held that being a company incorporated under the Companies Act, the appellants should have taken more care in filing the appeal on time. The Commissioner relied on the judgment in Ramagowda and Others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore 1988 (2) SCC 142, emphasizing the need for diligence in such matters.

Justification for Delay Provided by the Appellants:
The appellants, through their Manager (Finance), explained that the delay was due to the concerned person leaving the organization without handing over the necessary papers related to excise matters. The successor later discovered this, causing a delay in filing the appeal. The appellants also argued that the penalty imposed lacked substance as the original authority did not specify reasons for the penalty, merely citing procedural lapses. They claimed to have a strong case on merits.

Merits of the Case and Penalty Imposition:
The Revenue defended the impugned order, stating that the merit of the case could not be discussed at this stage. The appellants were criticized for not providing sufficient reasons for the delay, with the Revenue arguing that stating the delay was unintentional was insufficient. The original authority's penalty imposition was questioned for lacking specific reasons.

Adequacy of Reasons for Delay:
The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions, found merit in the Revenue's argument. It noted that the appellants did not file an application for condonation of delay before the Commissioner and failed to provide a detailed cause for the delay. The Manager (Finance) mentioned an unintentional delay of 45 days without specifying reasons, and the subsequent attempt to blame a clerk for the delay was not supported by evidence. The Tribunal held that the explanation provided was insufficient for condoning the delay, citing another Supreme Court judgment in UOI v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 (S.C.). Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, supporting the Commissioner's decision to dismiss it due to insufficient reasons for the delay in filing.