2012 (11) TMI 440 - AT - Central Excise

Condoning the delay of 486 days in filing the appeal - contention of appellant is that one Shri B.B. Bagaria was dealing with excise matter and retired in Jauuary 2010 and had not informed the appellant - Held that - Adjudication order was duly served upon them in January 2010 and appeal was filed in May 2011. Therefore, there is no merit in the contentions of the appellant - appellant had not taken care to file the appeal within the period of limitation and shifted blame on his employee - The negligence of the employee of applicant cannot be considered as sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, sufficient cause for delay

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, MUMBAI, the issue revolved around the condonation of a delay of 486 days in filing an appeal. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the retirement of an employee who failed to inform them about the impugned order, leading to a delay in filing the appeal. However, the Revenue contended that the appellant had received the adjudication order in January 2010 but only filed the appeal in May 2011. The Tribunal referred to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, which allows for condonation of delay upon showing sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's claim of employee negligence as the reason for the delay was not considered a sufficient cause. Consequently, the condonation of delay application was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the stay application and appeal as well.

The Tribunal emphasized that the responsibility to file the appeal within the limitation period lies with the appellant, regardless of the actions of their employee. The appellant's failure to take timely action and shifting blame onto the employee was not deemed a valid reason for condonation of delay. The Tribunal highlighted that the negligence of the employee cannot serve as a sufficient cause for missing the appeal deadline. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the condonation of delay application, stay application, and the appeal itself. The judgment underscores the importance of timely compliance with legal procedures and the consequences of failing to do so, even in cases where employee negligence is cited as a reason for delay.