2013 (12) TMI 285 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of Delay Delay of 23 days - Held that - The reasons given by the appellants for condonation of delay are totally unacceptable, inasmuch as having delayed the proceedings before the adjudicating authority and subsequently stating that on receipt of adjudication order they were under bona fide belief that the adjudication having passed beyond the stipulated period, is misconceived and incorrect - it is totally unacceptable reason for condonation of delay - any delay would be considered with pragmatism in a justice oriented approach, rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause - it cannot attributed to the adjudicating authority - no other valid reason or justifiable cause was propagated by the appellant before the first appellate authority thus, the first appellate authority was correct in coming to the conclusion that appellant had not justified the belated filing of appeal before him Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty liability and penalty.
2. Delay in filing appeal before the first appellate authority.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to applications filed for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty liability and penalty confirmed against the main appellant and other appellants. The issue was whether the appeals could be disposed of at the stage of considering the stay petitions. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority was justified due to the belief that the original order was not valid. They relied on various legal precedents to support their argument that delay should be condoned. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the appellants were responsible for the delay by not cooperating with the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal examined the submissions and records to reach a decision.

2. The Tribunal noted that in a previous round of litigation, it had directed the adjudicating authority to provide relied-upon documents to the appellant within a specified time frame. The appellants were to be heard and the order passed within three months from the date of receiving the documents. The first appellate authority refused to condone the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal, citing that the appellants failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions within the stipulated time. The appellants' reason for seeking condonation of delay was deemed unacceptable as they had delayed proceedings before the adjudicating authority and then claimed a belief that the order was passed beyond the stipulated period. The Tribunal found no valid reason or justifiable cause for the delay and upheld the first appellate authority's decision to reject the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the first appellate authority and consequently rejected the appeals.