9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal when the order was not served upon the appellant, it was served to an ex-employee of the appellant, thereafter the appellant was prevented to file appeal within time and it was sufficient cause for condonation of delay?" 4. Notice on behalf of the respondent is accepted by Shri Dharmadhikari. 5. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 6. The short question involved in this appeal is in respect of condonation of delay in filing appeal before the respondent. An appeal was preferred by the appellant against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-II, Bhopal dated 1-6-2011 on various grounds. By the order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n an ex-employee of the appellant, therefore, the appellant could not file the appeal within the limitation as his authorized signatory was sick. Along with the application, the appellant had filed medical papers in support of the contention that his authorized signatory Shri Dinesh K. Agrawal was sick. In the application, it stated that the order was handed over to a third person and an affidavit of Shri Gulab Mewade was also filed. On the aforesaid grounds, it is submitted by the appellant, he had made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the respondent had wrongly dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. 9. Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the aforesaid contentions. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08/ADJ/DC/BPL-II/2011, dated 1-6-2011 though perhaps posted in time was received by the applicant on 16-8-2011 i.e. a day after the independence day. 4. Further the applicant/appellant lost no time in deciding about filing of the appeal thereby crossing the normal statutory barrier of 60 days. Hence, this application for Condonation of Delay. An affidavit in support of this application is enclosed." 12. In support of the aforesaid application, the appellant had filed an affidavit of Shri Gulab Mewade, in which, he had specifically stated that he had left the job of appellant in May, 2011 and a postman though delivered the order to him, but he had delivered the same on 16th August, 2011 in the office of the appellant. The applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of delay. In the present case, the order was communicated to the appellant on 16-8-2011 as per affidavit of Shri Gulab Mewade. The appeal was filed within a period of 90 days from that date. So far as the sufficient cause is concerned, if the order was delivered to an ex-employee of the appellant, then until and unless such an order is delivered in the office of the appellant, it cannot be said that it was communicated to the appellant. The medical papers were also filed along with the application in support of the contention that the authorized signatory of the appellant was sick during the aforesaid period. The provisions of condonation of delay are not penal in nature and it has to be construed liberally if a case is made out for co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
