Tribunal Rejects Appeal for Delay in Filing, Section 35B(3) Central Excise Act

The Tribunal rejected the appeal for condonation of delay of 10 months and 15 days in filing an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 89 & 90/2011 under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's argument of being unaware of the order due to the departure of the employee who received it was not accepted, as the authorized signatory failed to manage the relevant central excise files and papers despite being with the company for over three months after resigning. The Tribunal deemed the delay unjustifiable and time-barred, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 35B(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944

In this judgment, the appellant filed an application for condonation of delay of 10 months and 15 days in filing an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 89 & 90/2011. The appellant argued that they were unaware of the order as the employee who received it had left the organization, and they only found out about it when recovery proceedings were initiated by the department. The authorized signatory who received the order had resigned from the company without handing over the files, and the company had also closed down the factory. The Tribunal noted that despite the authorized signatory being with the company for over three months after resigning, the company failed to take over the relevant central excise files and papers, indicating negligence in managing their affairs. The Tribunal found no justifiable explanation for the long delay and rejected the appeal as time-barred under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The key issue in this case was whether the delay of 10 months and 15 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal could be condoned under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that they were unaware of the order due to the departure of the employee who received it and only learned about it when recovery proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal observed that the authorized signatory who received the order had resigned from the company without handing over the files, and the company had also closed down the factory. Despite the authorized signatory staying with the company for over three months after resigning, the company failed to take over the relevant central excise files and papers, indicating negligence in managing their affairs. The Tribunal found that there was no justifiable explanation for the long delay and rejected the appeal as time-barred under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---