9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5)/Circular/CESTAT/2017 dated 24.01.2020, as the present appeal has been filed belatedly, no appeal number has been allotted thereto and only the diary number, as aforesaid. (iii) Along with the appeal filed as aforesaid, the appellant has also filed an application for condonation of delay, which was received in the Registry on 03rd March, 2021, seeking condonation of delay in filing of the impugned appeal. This application was filed without referring a word about the actual/total number of days' delay in the filing of the present appeal. (iv) The matter came up for consideration before the Bench on 1st May, 2024, when it was pointed out in the Daily Order that the appeal had been filed with a delay of more than two years nine months. It was very categorically mentioned in the Daily Order that: "...From the COD Petition, it is seen that they have not come up any explanation towards the delay. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, I find that the appellant is seeking adjournment..." (v) Thus, in the interest of justice, an adjournment was allowed then, with the direction that a clear Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay be filed in the matter. (vi) In p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 35B of the Act at the same time does also provide an element of discretion, vested in the Tribunal, to permit a belated filing of appeal provided sufficient cause were shown for not presenting the same within the stipulated time-period. 3.1. In the facts and circumstances as aforesaid, it may be appropriate to consider the factual timelines. 3.2. The impugned order is dated 12th March, 2018 and the same was received by the appellant on 05th May, 2018 and, as admitted by the appellant, they had received the order in time, which implies that the normal timeline of three months, for filing of the present appeal, would in the ordinary course, expire some time in and around 03rd August, 2018. It is observed, and as stated above, the appeal has been filed only on 03rd March, 2021. A back calculation thereof reveals a delay of over 1 year and 7 months (589 Days to be precise) [from 05th day of May, 2018 to 15th day of March 2020], in filing of the appeal, i.e. excluding the general Covid limitation amnesty allowed by the apex Court. 4. This delay has been largely explained in the Affidavit on account of certain medical contingencies and financial hardship. However, it is see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant fly in the face of thin air. It therefore prima facie appears that the appellant was resorting to clandestine manufacture and clearance from one of their unregistered units while simultaneously pleading non-production of the finished goods from the other premises (i.e., their registered premises) and subsequently, upon seizure and ultimate confiscation of raw material and other goods such as tobacco powder, lime dust, ash, etc., lying at the time of seizure, attempted a case for remission of duty, as a cover up. 7. Casting aside the factual aspects of the matter and reverting back to the contentions as made out for the COD application, it is prima facie evident from the: (i) the Miscellaneous Application filed for condonation of delay; and (ii) the Affidavit filed on 30th May, 2024. viz. the two opportunities at hand for the appellant, are but failed attempts, so as to meet and satisfy the requirements of law. It is settled law that in such scenarios, each day's delay is to be duly accounted for and properly explained. However, the narrations in the COD application or the Affidavit filed are mere bland statements and bereft of any evidence in support and accountal of the timel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive and a half months on grounds that the unit was closed and the Director handling the matter had resigned, were not held to be sufficient cause for allowing the petition for condonation of delay moved while filing of the appeal. 8.3. It may be apt to point out that in case of Vegam Computers v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Guntur 2001 (130) E.L.T. 474 (Tri. - Chennai), the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal while considering a case for a delay of 200 days duly supported by medical certificate and statement that the appellant faced loss of appetite, had held the same as insufficient reasons and failure to indicate critical illness which disabled filing of the appeal. The Tribunal did not condone the delay in the said case. 8.4. As grave a situation as the death of the advocate was also not held as a reason sufficient enough to permit condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal - Bengal Rolling Mills v. CCE, Calcuttra-III 2001 (77) ECC 138 (Tribunal). Likewise even far less number of days of delay have not been condoned by various authorities. Herein case of Krishnappa Silk Fabrics & Others v. CC, Chennai 2004 (92) ECC 664 (T) could be referred to wherein the Tribunal refused to condon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to gain from a delayed consideration of the matter, and while it is too well known that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred; however it is equally important that'each day's delay in filing the appeal is required to be explained. 8.6.1. However, I find not even a weak attempt at such an explanation accounting for the enormous delay of nearly two years (after discounting suo motu limitation free period), accruing in the present matter. 8.7. Though, time and again, Courts have emphasized that "sufficient cause" ought to be viewed with flexibility, but the same in the first place needs to be properly accounted for and satisfied with. Just because the Court has power to condone the delay, it cannot be so done mechanically and appeal accepted, but for appropriate and justifiable reasons. 8.8. Further, it be also noted that rejection of the COD application in the present matter does not prima facie lead to any miscarriage of justice as it is an admitted position by the appellant that their premises were unregistered and that they were undertaking manufacturing from the premises (unre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
