2013 (9) TMI 498 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of Delay - Commissioner rejected the request for remission of duty in respect of goods destroyed in fire - Based upon the said rejection of remission, Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty - Held that - It cannot be said that the delay in filing present appeal was on account of any malafide - There was a reasonable cause in the present matter leading to delayed filing of the appeal - the assesse was eventually given a copy of the order only on 11/5/11 and it was lapse on the part of the Revenue to respond to their very first letter addressed on 22nd October 2009 and the subsequent communications - There was no intentional lapse on the part of the assesse to delay filing of appeal. The subsequent order of Additional Commissioner confirming demand of duty as a consequence of rejection of remission application was challenged by the assesse within the period of limitation - if the department responded to their first communication, when the limitation period was yet to expire the delay in filing of appeal could not have been caused - the delay in the present appeal stands contributed by the Revenue and in fact the assesse had to take the strong legal remedy available to them, by way of filing of writ-petition before the Hon ble Delhi High Court. - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal due to non-receipt of impugned order, condonation of delay application, intentional delay, reasonable cause for delay, response from Revenue, service of impugned order

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved the issue of delay in filing an appeal due to the non-receipt of the impugned order by the appellant. The appellant's condonation of delay application was considered by the tribunal, focusing on whether the delay was intentional or had a reasonable cause. The lack of response from the Revenue to the appellant's requests for the impugned order was a crucial aspect of the case. The dispute also revolved around the method of service of the impugned order, particularly regarding the contention that the order was handed over in person and sent by speed post.

The analysis of the judgment highlighted the timeline of events, starting from the passing of the impugned order by the Commissioner, subsequent confirmation of duty demand by the Additional Commissioner, and the appellant's efforts to obtain a copy of the impugned order. The appellant's multiple communications to the Revenue requesting the impugned order went unanswered, leading to the appellant seeking relief from the High Court. The tribunal noted the lack of response from the Revenue to the appellant's initial request within the limitation period, emphasizing the Revenue's failure to address the appellant's concerns promptly.

The tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides, with the Revenue asserting that the order was handed over and sent by post, while the appellant disputed the receipt of the order. The tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the appeal was primarily due to the Revenue's lack of response and the appellant's efforts to obtain the impugned order. The tribunal found no intentional delay on the appellant's part and acknowledged that the appellant challenged the subsequent order within the limitation period, indicating a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal.

In the judgment, the tribunal highlighted the Revenue's responsibility to respond promptly to the appellant's requests and noted that the delay in the appeal was contributed by the Revenue's inaction. The tribunal ultimately condoned the delay and allowed the condonation of delay application, emphasizing that the appellant had to resort to legal remedies, such as filing a writ petition, due to the Revenue's failure to address the appellant's concerns in a timely manner.