Tribunal dismisses department's appeal due to unjustified 847-day delay. Lack of bona fides cited.

The Tribunal rejected the department's application for condonation of an 847-day delay in filing an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal found the delay unjustified, emphasizing the lack of bona fides on the department's part and refuting the plea of public interest raised by the Revenue. Subsequent instructions to file an appeal were deemed insufficient cause for delay condonation, given the significant delay in this case.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal - 847 days.

Analysis:
The case involved a delay of 847 days in filing an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 1150, dated 29-6-99 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. The impugned order was received on 5-7-99 and accepted on 4-10-99 by the department. The department did not have any grievance against the order until 19-1-2002 when a review directed the appeal to be preferred. The department filed the appeal on 28-1-2002. The department sought condonation of the delay, citing unintentional and bona fide reasons, while the respondent vehemently opposed the application, arguing lack of bona fides. The respondent relied on previous judgments to support their plea against condonation of delay, emphasizing that acceptance of the order by the department in reconsideration does not justify delay condonation.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted the significant delay of 847 days in filing the appeal. It highlighted that the department accepted the impugned order on the last day of the statutory limitation period and persisted with the decision not to file an appeal for over two years. Review proceedings were initiated during this period on similar issues, but the application did not mention any appeal against the previous order relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found the delay unjustified, indicating a lack of bona fides on the department's part. The plea of public interest raised by the Revenue was deemed unconvincing in light of the circumstances. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized that subsequent instructions to file an appeal do not constitute sufficient cause for delay condonation, especially considering the significant 847-day delay in this case. Consequently, the department's application for condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

---