2019 (6) TMI 875 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - proof of service of order - HELD THAT - In the case at hand though as evident from paragraph 2 of the impugned order that the department did not respond to the letter dated 28.06.2018 sent by the Tribunal seeking the date and proof of service - However, the facts on record reveal that all the notices right from 12/02/2007 were addressed at the registered address of the appellant and were received by them. The appellate order dated 30/04/2014 is shown to be served on same address. In this fact situation, since the appellant failed to discharge the onus that it was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within limitation, the Tribunal, in our considered opinion, was justified in declining to condone delay. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration, no indulgence is caused - Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, Condonation of delay, Communication of appellate order, Justification of declining to condone delay, Service of decisions and orders.

Analysis:

1. Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal:
The appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was filed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 4 years, citing insufficient cause shown by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for the delay were not relevant or reasonable, as the appellant failed to explain the delay adequately.

2. Condonation of delay:
The appellant sought condonation of delay on the grounds of not receiving the copy of the order-in-appeal dated 30.04.2014 in a timely manner due to the death of the proprietor. However, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation, stating that the appellant failed to provide a cogent explanation for the initial delay of two years. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not meet the necessary criteria to warrant condonation of delay.

3. Communication of appellate order:
The appellant contended that the Tribunal's finding regarding the communication of the appellate order was without cogent material on record. The appellant relied on a previous decision to support the argument that the order should have been served on the authorized party or agent. However, the Tribunal found that all correspondences and notices were addressed to the appellant at their registered address, indicating proper communication.

4. Justification of declining to condone delay:
The Tribunal justified its decision to decline condonation of delay by highlighting that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving that they were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the limitation period. The Tribunal concluded that, in the absence of a substantial question of law, the appeal was rightly dismissed.

5. Service of decisions and orders:
The legal provisions regarding the service of decisions, orders, summons, etc., under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were discussed in the judgment. The Tribunal noted that all notices and orders were addressed to the appellant at their registered address and were duly received. The Tribunal emphasized that proper service was established, and the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the limitation period was not justified.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, as no substantial question of law arose for consideration, and the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal's decision to decline condonation of delay was upheld based on the lack of a valid explanation from the appellant.

← Previous Next →