2014 (4) TMI 259 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Non receipt of copy of the OIA - Held that - appellant has not given any proper address to the lower authorities despite having knowledge that his factory is closed and also did not avail the opportunity of personal hearings, granted by the lower authorities, it seems that he had committed himself of not cooperating with the authorities. Secondly, having been not co-operative with the authorities, today, the appellant/applicant cannot claim that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal be condoned which, in our view, is a prayer which needs to be discarded for the reason that appellant was made aware of the Order-in-Appeal dt. 26.2.2007 by the department on pasting the same at his last known address. Thirdly, we find that the address given by the appellant in an appeal filed before the Tribunal is also the very same address wherein his factory was located to which the Order-in-Appeal was sent by post and it was received back - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, condonation of delay, service of Order-in-Appeal, cooperation with authorities.

Analysis:
1. Delay in Filing Appeal Before the Tribunal:
The appellant filed a condonation of delay application due to not being aware of the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) issued in 2007 as the factory was closed. The appellant argued that if the copy had been endorsed to their counsel, they would have filed an appeal earlier. The appellant highlighted various court decisions supporting the condonation of delay to ensure the right to appeal is not deprived.

2. Condonation of Delay:
The Departmental Representative contended that the OIA was dispatched as per statutory provisions and was sent to the appellant's last known address. The appellant's advocate argued that they only received the certified copy after being directed by the Tribunal. However, upon deeper analysis, the Tribunal found that the appellant was represented before the first appellate authority in 2007, and the department had made efforts to serve the OIA through registered post and by pasting it at the last known address.

3. Cooperation with Authorities:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not provide a proper address to the authorities despite knowing about the factory closure and did not attend personal hearings. The appellant's lack of cooperation with the authorities led the Tribunal to conclude that the delay in filing the appeal should not be condoned. The appellant's address provided to the Tribunal was the same as the location of the closed factory where the OIA was sent and returned.

4. Final Decision:
The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay of over 6/7 years as lacking merit. Consequently, the stay petition and appeal were also dismissed. The Tribunal held that it was not a suitable case to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, considering the appellant's lack of cooperation and the efforts made by the department to serve the OIA.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of timely filing appeals, cooperation with authorities, and the significance of providing accurate contact information to avoid delays and ensure proper service of legal documents.