Court grants condonation for late appeal filing due to manager's sudden departure. Revenue's objection overruled.

The court granted the application seeking condonation of a 143-day delay in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to the sudden departure of the Finance Manager responsible for Excise matters without informing the company about the impugned Order-in-Appeal. Despite the Revenue's argument regarding untimely correspondence, the judge found the delay justified due to the manager's absence and lack of communication. Recognizing the appellant's genuine efforts to locate the manager and the circumstances leading to the delay, the court condoned the delay and allowed the miscellaneous application.

---

---

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal

Analysis:
The case involved an application seeking condonation of a 143-day delay in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to the sudden departure of Mr. Sunil Prasad, the Finance Manager in charge of Excise matters, who did not inform the company about the receipt of the impugned Order-in-Appeal before leaving. The appellant's advocate presented letters of correspondence between the company and Mr. Prasad, indicating efforts made to contact him. Initially, letters sent to his residential address were undelivered, but upon sending them to his village address, Mr. Prasad contacted the company, requesting leave without pay for a specific period. The delay in filing the appeal was claimed to be a result of Mr. Prasad's departure without proper handover, prompting the company to search for him after receiving the impugned order from the Range Superintendent. The appellant's approach was deemed bona fide, leading to the prayer for condonation of delay.

The Revenue's representative argued that the correspondences were not timely informed to the Range Superintendent. However, after hearing both sides and examining the records, the judge found that the delay was indeed due to Mr. Prasad's absence from duty without informing the appellant. The company only became aware of the impugned order upon communication by the Range Superintendent, following which they made significant efforts to locate Mr. Prasad before filing the appeal upon his return to duty. The judge noted the correspondence between the appellant and Mr. Prasad, acknowledging the delay was a consequence of Mr. Prasad's failure to communicate about the order in a timely manner. Considering the explanations provided and the bona fide nature of the reasons, the judge decided to condone the delay and allowed the miscellaneous application. The delay was deemed justified under the circumstances, leading to the allowance of the application seeking condonation.

---