2013 (11) TMI 328 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of Delay Delay of 88 Days Held that - Delay was due to oversight in non-production of the order - due to oversight they could not follow-up the matter and later on when the department issued notice for recovery they came to know that appeal was not filed, they took appropriate action and filed the appeal - the delay of 88 days has been explained by the individuals responsible for the matters in the Company - the application for condonation of delay allowed Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Bench.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved an application for condonation of delay of 88 days in filing the appeal.
2. The learned counsel sought time to file an affidavit explaining the delay, which was granted by the Bench.
3. Affidavits were filed by responsible persons, Shri Ghanshayam M. Kulkarni and Sri Rakesh Kumar P. Patel, detailing the reasons for the delay.
4. The delay was attributed to an oversight in non-production of the order, as explained by Shri Ghanshayam M. Kulkarni who instructed his junior to forward the Order-in-Appeal but oversight led to non-filing of the appeal.
5. The individuals responsible for the matter in the Company took appropriate action upon realizing the oversight when the department issued a notice for recovery.
6. The Bench, upon perusal of the affidavits and reasons for delay, found the explanation satisfactory and allowed the application for condonation of delay.
7. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the registry was directed to take on record the stay petition and appeal filed by the assessee.

This judgment highlights the importance of providing a valid explanation for delays in legal proceedings, emphasizing the need for responsible individuals to take appropriate action to rectify oversights promptly. The decision underscores the discretion of the Bench to allow condonation of delay based on the merits of the explanation provided by the parties involved.