2019 (4) TMI 889 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 506 days in filing appeal - service of order - Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - There is an inordinate delay of 506 days in filing these two appals. Further, the appellant as per their own averments in the applications received the copy of the impugned order in the first week of June 2017 by the security staff of the appellant but it was not handed over to the concerned employee dealing with Central Excise cases. The appellants have been very casual and negligent in not filing the appeal expeditiously even after coming to know of the impugned order in November / December 2018. Consequently, there are no sufficient reasons for condoning such an inordinate delay of 506 days. COD application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, Condonation of delay, Reasons for delay, Liberal approach for condonation, Merits of the case

Delay in filing appeals:
The appellant filed two COD applications and two appeals against Order-in-Appeal No.107 & 108/2017/LTU dated 26/05/2017, seeking condonation of delay of 506 days in filing the appeals. The appellant claimed that the impugned order was received in the first week of June 2017, but the appeals were filed on 05/02/2019, citing reasons for the delay.

Condonation of delay:
The appellant explained that the delay was due to the order not being brought to the attention of staff handling Central Excise matters, and the copy not being sent to the consultant who appeared in the matter. Additionally, the appellant stated that they only became aware of the order in November/December 2018, after an inquiry from the Central Tax Department in the new jurisdiction post-GST implementation.

Reasons for delay:
The appellant argued that the delay was unintentional and requested a liberal approach for condonation, citing Supreme Court precedents. They emphasized a strong case on merit and submitted an affidavit supporting the reasons for delay.

Liberal approach for condonation:
The appellant's counsel urged for a liberal approach in condoning the delay, referring to legal precedents emphasizing the need to consider merits along with delay. The appellant highlighted the lack of deliberate intent in the delay and the subsequent discovery of the order due to jurisdictional changes post-GST.

Merits of the case:
The appellant contended that they had a strong case on merit, which should be considered in conjunction with the delay in filing the appeals. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay should be condoned considering the circumstances and the importance of the case on its merits.

The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and examining the records, noted the inordinate delay of 506 days in filing the appeals. The Tribunal found that the appellant had received the impugned order in June 2017 but failed to act promptly upon it. Despite the appellant's claim of discovering the order in late 2018, the Tribunal deemed the reasons provided insufficient and the delay unjustifiable. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the COD applications and the appeals, emphasizing the appellant's casual and negligent approach in the matter.