2011 (9) TMI 707 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal denies delay condonation, dismisses stay application and appeal. Importance of timely action stressed.

M/s. DSM Sugar, Asmoli Versus CCE, Meerut-I

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's delay condonation application, leading to the dismissal of the stay application and appeal. The Tribunal found the ... Delay in filing of appeal - Condonation - Delay of 126 days - Service of Order 14.10.2010 - G M left office in August - VP died on 11.12.10 - Held that:- G.M. (F&A) left office two months before service of order. Further the date on which the file was called by VP is not apparent - Even after death there was sufficient time limit available to seek appeal remedy which was nearly more than 30 days. The vigilant attitude of the appellant does not come out - If litigant is not vigilant of its right such an indulgent does not deserve any consideration for condonation of delay. The length of the delay does not appeal to allow a belated appeal to survive. Decided against assessee. Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delayDelay in filing appeal:The appellant sought condonation of a 126-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to the departure of a key official and subsequent confusion regarding the necessary actions. The appellant argued that the delay was not deliberate and prayed for consideration to avoid grave injury. However, the Tribunal scrutinized the reasons provided and found them lacking in merit. The Tribunal considered the precedents set by the Apex Court in similar cases and emphasized the importance of being vigilant about one's rights. The Tribunal noted that the reasons presented did not justify the delay, especially considering the ample time available after the key official's departure and the subsequent events. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the delay condonation application, leading to the dismissal of the stay application and appeal.Condonation of delay:The appellant's counsel earnestly pleaded for the condonation of the delay to prevent adverse consequences for the appellant. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the appellant's proposition. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the record, concluded that the reasons provided for the delay were insufficient and did not warrant condonation. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of vigilance on the part of the appellant in pursuing the appeal remedy promptly. The Tribunal emphasized that a belated appeal, especially when the litigant fails to be vigilant about their rights, should not be allowed to survive. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of delay in filing the appeal and the subsequent decision on the condonation of delay, providing insights into the Tribunal's reasoning and the application of legal principles in reaching the final decision.