2012 (9) TMI 343 - AT - Central Excise

Delay of 39 days in filing - Held that - On considering the assessee s submission there is no proper explanation given for condonation of delay that the factory of the appellant is closed since November, 2006 and therefore Director of the appellant lives at its native place at Rohtak, Haryana who came to know about the receipt of Order-in-Appeal though RTI from family members only on 1st week of December when he visited his family member and then immediately arranged for drafting and filing of the appeal but by that time, there was already a delay of 39 days in filing the appeal. Appellant has not made out a case for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeals, Condonation of delay

In this case, the issue revolved around the condonation of a delay of 39 days in filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The appellant contended that they did not receive the Order-in-Appeal dated 31.03.2010 due to the closure of their factory since November 2006. The appellant claimed that they only became aware of the order on 12.07.2011 through an RTI application. The appellant's director, residing in Rohtak, Haryana, learned about the order in the first week of December through family members. The appellant filed for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit reiterating the grounds for the delay. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant's advocate was served with the relevant documents on 12.07.2011, and the appellant's knowledge of the order was also on the same date. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to provide a proper explanation for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the applications for condonation of delay and subsequently, the dismissal of the Stay Petitions and appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the Order-in-Appeal was seemingly served on a different unit, M/s Arvind Processors, Surat, instead of the appellant, M/s Shagun Processors Pvt. Ltd. Despite this discrepancy, the Revenue authorities provided all requested documents under an RTI application by the appellant's advocate on 12.07.2011. The appellant argued that due to the factory closure, they did not receive the order and only learned about it through the RTI application. The appellant's director, residing in Rohtak, Haryana, was unaware of the order until December when informed by family members. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's explanation for the delay lacked sufficient justification, as the advocate received the documents on 12.07.2011, the same date the appellant became aware of the order. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant did not establish grounds for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the applications and subsequent appeals.