2014 (10) TMI 304 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal dismisses appeal for delay; inadequate explanation cited despite representative's illness.

GUPTA METALLICS & POWER LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the lack of adequacy in the appellant's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, despite citing the ... Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 439 days - reason adduced for this delay is that the authorized representative of the appellant company, was unwell and was advised bed rest due to hyper tension with diabetics mellitus with infected wound in right foot with cellulites due to gangrene and was immobile - held that:- it is not the length of the delay but the adequacy of the explanation that should be considered for condonation of delay. In the present case, the only ground adduced by the appellant is that Shri Jagdish Sharma was sick and he was advised bed rest due to hyper tension with diabetics mellitus and was immobile. This is no explanation as to why the Directors who were looking after the affairs of the company could not have filed the appeal. Further it is on record that Shri Jagdish Sharma, attended the personal hearings before the excise authorities in October, 2013. In these circumstances, the argument of the appellant that because of Shri Jagdish Sharma's illness, there was a delay in filing the appeal is not convincing. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balkrishnan Vs. Krishna Murthy - [1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] had held that it is the adequacy of the explanation that matters and not the length of delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that 'condonation of delay is a matter of discretion length of the delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion' - condonation denied. Issues:Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Adequacy of explanationAnalysis:Issue 1: Delay in filing appealThe appeal was filed against Order-in-Original No. 57/2012/C dated 24/08/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur. The appellant cited a delay of 439 days beyond the stipulated 90 days for filing the appeal. The reason given for the delay was the illness of Shri Jagdish Sharma, the authorized representative of the appellant company, who was advised bed rest due to health issues. The appellant submitted a medical certificate issued by Dr. J.N. Pande, certifying Shri Jagdish Sharma's illness and treatment period. The Revenue was directed to verify the certificate and ascertain how the company was managed during the impugned period.Issue 2: Condonation of delayThe appellant argued that due to Shri Jagdish Sharma's illness, the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. The appellant relied on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in a similar case. However, the Revenue contended that Shri Jagdish Sharma's illness was not supported by the report of jurisdictional excise officers since he had attended a personal hearing before the Deputy Commissioner. The adequacy of the explanation provided by the appellant was questioned.Issue 3: Adequacy of explanationThe Tribunal emphasized that the adequacy of the explanation, not the length of the delay, is crucial for condonation of delay. Despite Shri Jagdish Sharma's illness, the fact that the company had other Directors who could have filed the appeal was highlighted. The Tribunal noted that Shri Jagdish Sharma had participated in personal hearings before the excise authorities during the period in question. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized that the sufficiency of the explanation is the determining factor for condonation of delay. In this case, the Tribunal found the appellant's explanation lacking and rejected the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of delay in filing the appeal, the condonation of delay, and the adequacy of the explanation provided by the appellant. The Tribunal's decision was based on the examination of the circumstances surrounding the delay and the appellant's justification for it.