2015 (10) TMI 140 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Delay due to the maternity leave of Mrs. Paniveni - whether there is any plausible and acceptable explanation for condoning the enormous delay of 325 days - Held that - Fact of one of the concerned employee, who in any case has also not been shown to be associated with the matter, going on maternity leave cannot be considered to be a reasonable cause for leading to such a huge delay of 325 days. - explanation tendered by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeal, is flimsy and does not inspire confidence. It is a clear case of latches on the part of the assessee in which case the ground of limitation cannot be diluted and the inordinate delay of 325 days cannot be condoned. - appeals are liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals due to maternity leave.
2. Responsibility for filing appeal in Central Excise matters.
3. Reasonableness of explanation for the delay.
4. Precedents on condonation of delay in legal matters.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore deals with the condonation of delay in filing appeals arising from two separate orders by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant filed the appeals with a delay of 325 days, well beyond the statutory period for filing. The appellant attributed the delay to an employee's maternity leave, stating that the responsibility for Central Excise matters was shared between two employees. However, the Tribunal noted that the employee on maternity leave was not solely responsible for filing the appeal. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents emphasizing that delays cannot be condoned without a valid and justifiable cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in a similar case highlighted that delays should not be condoned merely due to bureaucratic inefficiencies or negligence.

The Tribunal analyzed the appellant's explanation for the delay and found it to be inadequate and lacking credibility. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that substantial delays, like the one in this case, cannot be excused without a strong and convincing reason. The Tribunal referred to decisions where delays were not condoned due to insufficient explanations or lack of diligence on the part of the appellant. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's explanation for the delay was weak, indicating negligence on their part, and therefore, decided to reject the condonation of delay applications.

As the delay was not condoned, the appeals were dismissed as being time-barred. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that diluting the grounds of limitation in such cases would not be justified. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the consequences of failing to do so in legal proceedings.