2006 (3) TMI 652 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal denies appeal due to delayed filing, leading to dismissal of stay. Decision on 21-3-2006.

The tribunal rejected the condonation of delay in filing the appeal for 233 days, leading to the dismissal of the stay and appeal. The decision was ... Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay in filing appeal Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal due to misplaced papers.Analysis:1. The appellant sought condonation of a 233-day delay in filing an appeal due to misplaced papers. The appellant claimed that the papers were handed over to an advocate in February 2005, but were lost by the advocate's junior. The advocate located the papers in November 2005 and advised the appellant to engage another advocate for filing the appeal before CESTAT. The appellant diligently followed up with the advocate's office, but the papers were not found until November 2005.2. The appellant's counsel submitted an affidavit stating that the papers were lost in February 2005, and despite thorough searches, they were only located in November 2005. The counsel argued that the party should not be penalized for the advocate's lapse in misplacing the papers. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the counsel requested condonation of the delay, emphasizing that sufficient cause had been explained in similar cases.3. The JDR contended that there were clear lapses and negligence on the part of both the appellant and the advocates. It was highlighted that the appellant was aware of the lost papers in February 2005, well within the limitation period for filing the appeal. The JDR argued that the appellant and the advocates should have prepared another set of papers to file the appeal but failed to do so. Referring to legal precedents, the JDR asserted that delays were not condoned when there was no bona fide explanation or when negligence was evident.4. After careful consideration, the tribunal agreed with the JDR's contentions. It was observed that the appellant and their counsels were aware of the misplaced file before the appeal filing deadline but took no action to rectify the situation. The tribunal noted the clear negligence and delays on record, leading to the rejection of the condonation of delay. Citing previous judgments, the tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the lack of a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, ultimately upholding the decision to reject the condonation of delay and dismissing the appeal.Judgment: The tribunal rejected the condonation of delay in filing the appeal for 233 days and consequently dismissed the stay and appeal. The decision was pronounced in open court on 21-3-2006.