9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re engaged in the manufacture of plywood of various types at their factory at Tinsukia, Assam. A show cause notice was issued to the Appellant way back in the year 1985, alleging, inter alia, undervaluation of their goods and clandestine clearance of prime quality of ply wood in the garb of defective and second quality and thereby evaded central excise duty to the tune of Rs.1,82,67,650.99. The said Notice was adjudicated on 24.02.1990 by the Collector of Central Excise. The Appellant filed a Writ petition no. C.R.489/90 challenging the said Order-in-Original dated 26.05.1989 before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Their Lordships by the Order dt.19.03.1990 after setting aside the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant filed an appeal before the Division Bench on 22.01.2007. During the pendency of the appeal before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, the Appellant had filed the present Appeal before this Tribunal on 20.09.2010 along with an Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal without mentioning the period of delay and also any specific reason for such delay. 5. The Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that even though in their Misc. application dt.20.09.2010 seeking condonation for delay, they had neither mentioned the period of delay nor reasons thereof, but later on 28.09.2011, they had filed a detailed affidavit explaining the grounds of delay of 3187 days in filing the Appeal. They mentioned that their plywood factory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor had consequently filed an affidavit on 03.05.2012 stating that during the course of discussion with the learned Advocate, the Company was advised to file an appeal before this Tribunal against the Order dated 20.09.2001; accordingly, they filed the present Appeal. 7. Learned AR(Addl. Commissioner) appearing for the Department has submitted that the Appellants have been on one pretext or the other, resorting to the dilly-dally tactics in delaying the recovery of duty evaded by them for which a case was booked against them in the year 1985. They had filed three Writ Petitions and one Writ Appeal, thereby stalled the proceeding initiated against them by about 27 years, when the Appellant were fully aware of the fact that the statutory re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te filed an appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal, it is prayed that the delay in submission of the appeal may therefore be condoned." 9. A perusal of the said Application, it is clear that the same is vague and neither the period of delay nor any explanation for the delay has been stated. After a period of one year, their Director filed an affidavit on 28.10.2011 stating the delay to be of 3187 days and sought condonation of the same. It has been stated that the Company had been closed since 1996 due to force majeure situation; and the company had become sick and was declared sick by BIFR; the key personnel left the company due to uncertain future; the sudden demise of the Chairman and sickness of their Managing Director, had compounded the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarified that the same should not be mechanically applied. In a recent judgment the Hon'ble Appex court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd. 2012 (277) ELT 289 (SC) while denying special treatment to Govt. Agencies has laid down that delay should not be condoned mechanically but it is to be seen whether there is gross negligence or deliberate in action or lack of bonafide approach by the Applicant. 11. In the present case, we find that the Applicant/Appellant, though mentioned the delay of 3187 days, they have not furnished the detailed date chart explaining such inordinate delay; leave aside the day wise explanation of the delay even they failed to explain the month wise delay. Besides, we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove inference is also fortified from the fact that while filing the condonation application on 20.09.2010 along with the Appeal, they had neither indicated the number of days delay nor stated the reasons thereof making it vague and keeping their all options open. 13. We find from a reading of the judgement of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, that while disposing the writ Appeal, their Lordships observed that the Appellant were at liberty to approach the Tribunal for necessary reliefs. It would be at the discretion of the Appellant to pursue such remedy by way of appeal before the Tribunal, and file necessary application for condonation of delay. It seems that the Appellant had not disclosed to the Hon'ble High Court that they had already f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
