9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - By this application for condonation of delay, appellant is seeking condonation of delay of 299 days in filing the appeal. The impugned order-in-original No. 41 /2004-Cus., dated 12-11-04 was said to have been received by the appellant on 20-11-04. They ought to have filed appeal within 90 days. However, the appellant did not choose to file the appeal. On the other hand the chairman of the Company Shri C. Basava Purnaiah by his letter dated 1st December 04 referring to the impugned order confirmed to the Commissioner of customs that they did not propose to go on appeal. The said chairman in his letter to the Commissioner of Customs on the Company's letter head took a categorical decision not to appeal agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les and the appellant was totally ignorant of the legality of the demands proposed against it. Though ignorance of law (legal provisions) cannot be pleaded in defence, ignorance about the decision of a Hon'ble Apex Court, can certainly be pleaded, if otherwise, irreparable damage would be caused to the appellant. 7.0 The appellant also wishes to submit that even if the benefit of the above said decision has not been pleaded by the appellant, the Commissioner, who is adjudicating the issue as a quasi-judicial authority, should have extended the benefit of the decision, suo motu. 8.0 From the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant, it may be observed that the duty demand confirmed against the appellant and the penalty imposed are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the COD filed along with the appeal, the appellant did not choose to make any submission pertaining to non-availability of the Chairman or about the Directors in the Company or about their physical ailment, old age or disability in filing the appeal. The appellant's counsel chose to file additional affidavit and time chart after completing his argument on 29-5-06; and after finding difficulty in explaining the delay, therefore additional submission have been filed with affidavit of the chairman of Shri Basava Purnaiah and of one person Shri C.P. Suresh. Shri C.P. Suresh has contended in his affidavit that he was responsible for import/export of the Company. He met with an accident on 19-2-05 and was hospitalized. He did not resume work ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd. The Tribunal has referred to its earlier larger bench judgment rendered in 1. Collector v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. [1990 (47) E.L.T. 61] 2. CCE v. Navin Chemicals Enterprises [2001 (130) E.L.T. 672] 3. CCE v. J.K. Industries [2001 (136) E.L.T. 809] 4. CCE v. Titan Industries [2001 (135) E.L.T. 515] 5. CCE v. Agro Extracts Ltd. [2002 (144) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.)] These judgments clearly apply to the facts of the case and the judgment cited by the counsel in the case of Bhag Singh Others v. Major Daljit Singh Others [1987 (32) E.L.T. 258 (S.C.)] does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the lapse is patent on record. The appellant company has shifted the blame on their Manage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. Suresh, the appeals could not be filed is an after thought and not a correct submission. The reason for not filing the appeal is patent by their letter dated 1st December 04 in not preferring the appeal. Subsequent decisions of the Tribunal on similar issues in favour of the appellant has prompted the appellant and their counsel to file the appeal to take advantage of subsequent judgments after a lapse of 299 days. This cannot be a ground for condoning the delay as held by the Tribunal in the case of ITC Ltd., (supra) and as held in the case of CCE v. British Motor Co Ltd., [2006 (194) E.L.T. 405]. There is no sufficient cause to condone the delay. The application suffers from lapse and negligence and hence the application is rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
