2015 (4) TMI 1136 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of Delay Denied: Importance of Genuine Reasons & Evidence

M/s. Tribeni Metalloys (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guwahati

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA dismissed the Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of an 84-day delay in filing an Appeal, as the Applicant ... Condonation of delay - 84 days - non-furnishing of details in support of his reason - Held that:- we do not find sufficient reasons supported by evidences displaying bonafideness on the part of the applicant and also no proper explanation is forthcoming supported by evidence for the inordinate delay of 84 days in filing the Appeal before this forum. The vague reason of delay selection of Counsel is also not supported by evidence with details thereof. By following the ratio laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Office of Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd. [2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], we are of the view that the Applicant could not able to make out a case for condonation of the delay of 84 days. - Decided against the appellant Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the Appeal before the forum.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA, the issue revolved around the condonation of delay in filing an Appeal before the forum. The Applicant had filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of an 84-day delay in filing the Appeal. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue argued that the reasons for delay provided by the Applicant were vague and lacked supporting evidence, as per the guidelines set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant failed to justify the delay with bona fide reasons and did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. The Tribunal, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case, held that the Applicant could not make a case for condonation of the delay. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the Appeals and Stay Petitions as well.This judgment highlights the importance of providing valid and supported reasons for seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized the need for applicants to demonstrate bonafide reasons for any delay and to support their claims with concrete evidence. Failure to meet these requirements can result in the dismissal of the condonation application, leading to the dismissal of the main appeals or petitions. The judgment serves as a reminder for parties involved in legal proceedings to adhere to the established principles and guidelines when seeking condonation of delay to ensure a fair and just legal process.