Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 268 - AT - Central ExciseCondonation of Delay Held that - Following CCE Cochin Vs. Mathew Kurian 1999 (2) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - A person seeking condonation of delay has to give full justification with documentary evidence as to why the delay in filing appeal should be condoned - the appellant has shown a very casual approach in seeking condonation of delay without giving any justifiable reasons and documentary evidences - it is held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected their appeal as time barred by not condoning the delay in filing appeal - stay application and the appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the first appellate authority. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) No.SRP/04/DMN/2013-14, which was rejected by the first appellate authority as time-barred due to a delay of 24 days. The appellant argued that they had a strong case on merit and requested the delay to be condoned. The Revenue contended that the delay was rightly not condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals) as specific reasons for non-condonation were provided in the OIA. The first appellate authority found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the employee responsible for the delay and did not make a serious attempt to explain the delay with proper evidence. The first appellate authority referred to various case laws emphasizing the need for a reasonable explanation before condoning a delay in filing an appeal. The judgment of CESTAT Delhi in a similar case highlighted the importance of disclosing justifiable reasons for delay and the insufficiency of reasons like the sickness of a General Manager as a ground for condonation. It was noted that a person seeking condonation of delay must provide full justification with documentary evidence. In this case, it was observed that the appellant had a casual approach in seeking condonation without providing justifiable reasons and documentary evidence. Based on the above analysis, it was concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly rejected the appeal as time-barred by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The stay application and the appeal were consequently dismissed. The judgment underscores the importance of providing a valid and substantiated explanation supported by documentary evidence when seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals before appellate authorities.
|