Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1180 - CESTAT NEW DELHICondonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 739 days - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- On 3-9-2013, the COD application was taken up for consideration and an order was passed observing that there was a dispute as to the date of receipt of the appeal in the Tribunal's Registry. The appeal in fact was physically filed on 6-2-2013, with a delay of 739 days. The Tribunal observed that in the COD application, the petitioner asserted that there was no delay as the appeal was sent to the Tribunal through a Courier service - M/s Time Pak Courier on 21-1-2011 and as per the Courier service receipt, the appeal was received by the Tribunal on 22-1-2011 along with a Demand Draft towards the appeal fee. In its order dated 3-9-2013, Tribunal directed the Registry to verify and report regarding the petitioner's claim of filing the appeal through Courier and whether the appellant had sent an e-mail enquiring about the filing of appeal, on 19-3-2012. Registry has furnished a report signed by the Registrar on 3-9-2013. As per this report, no appeal was received either by Courier, by post or by hand, earlier to 6-2-2013. The report also states that signature on the Courier receipt does not tally with the signatures of any officer of the Registry. The report also states that the e-mail sent by the petitioner on 19-3-2012 was received by the Registry along with the copy of the Courier receipt, on 19-3-2012. However no Demand Draft was received and there is no entry of receipt of a Demand Draft in the Demand draft register. Choice of the Courier is of petitioner/appellant and therefore the Courier service provider is an agent of the appellant. In the light of the report of the Registrar dated 30-9-2012, it is apparent that the appeal was not filed/received in the Tribunal prior to 6-2-2013, a date on which the appeal was physically filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the extraordinary delay of 739 days cannot be condoned as there is no valid justification established for such inordinate delay. - Condonation denied.
|