1998 (2) TMI 202 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to file an appeal within the specified time period after receiving a copy of the order.
2. Dispute regarding the necessity of a certified copy for filing the appeal.
3. Allegation of obstinacy on the part of the appellant in delaying the appeal process.
4. Consideration of technical objections raised by the appellant in delaying the appeal.
5. Evaluation of the advice from a former consultant in the decision-making process.
6. Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the appellant failing to file an appeal within the stipulated time period after receiving a copy of the order. The appellant received a xerox copy of the order dated 17-1-1991 from the Assistant Collector on 12th November 1994, but did not file an appeal within three months of this receipt, leading to the appeal being time-barred.

2. There was a dispute regarding the necessity of a certified copy for filing the appeal. The appellant argued that a certified copy was essential, citing Rule 216 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, the Tribunal found that the copy provided by the Assistant Collector had all the characteristics of a certified copy, as it was duly signed and enclosed with a forwarding letter.

3. The respondent alleged obstinacy on the part of the appellant in delaying the appeal process. The respondent contended that the appellant had been rigid in not filing the appeal promptly, leading to a delay in the payment of over Rs. 4 lakhs. The Tribunal noted the appellant's technical objections and delays in decision-making.

4. The Tribunal considered the technical objections raised by the appellant in delaying the appeal. The appellant had raised objections regarding the lack of a certified copy and had consulted a former consultant, but the Tribunal found these objections insufficient to justify the delay in filing the appeal.

5. The appellant had sought to rely on advice from a former consultant, Shri K.N. Mukherjee, in the decision-making process. However, the Tribunal found that no written advice had been provided, and the alleged oral advice was deemed insufficient to excuse the delay in filing the appeal.

6. The appellant had filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides, dismissed the Miscellaneous Application and rejected the appeal as time-barred, ultimately disposing of the Stay Petition as well.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the appellant's reasons for the delay in filing the appeal to be inadequate and dismissed the appeal as time-barred, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with appeal procedures in such legal matters.