CESTAT allows appeal after 293-day delay, citing bona fide mistake and Supreme Court precedent N. Balakrishnan

CESTAT New Delhi condoned a 293-day delay in filing an appeal, accepting the appellant's explanation that the delay arose from a bona fide mistake by employees who misinterpreted the order as a show cause notice. Despite the inordinate delay, the appellant had an unconditional stay against the original order and faced a mandatory pre-deposit due to the delay. Applying the Supreme Court precedent in N. Balakrishnan, the tribunal held that the delay was excusable and allowed the appeal to proceed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the Commissioner's Order dated 26.08.2013.
2. Whether the delay in filing the appeal was due to a bona fide mistake.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Commissioner's Order confirming a duty demand of Rs. 4.52 crores, with interest and penalty under Section 11 AC. The application for condonation of delay was filed due to a delay of 293 days in filing the appeal. The appellant had complied with the provisions of Section 35 F by paying 7.5% of the duty demand. The issue revolved around whether Masala Mix prepared by the appellant for namkeens manufacturing attracted central excise duty. The appellant argued the delay was due to a genuine misunderstanding as the order was mistakenly considered a show cause notice. The Departmental Representative opposed the delay condonation citing the appellant's legal department's responsibility. The Tribunal considered the facts and previous appeals filed in time, concluding the delay was a bona fide mistake by the appellant's employees. The delay of 293 days was condoned, and the COD application was allowed for further hearing.

2. The Tribunal noted that previous appeals had been filed in time, and the delay in the current appeal was attributed to a new Assistant Manager and Legal Manager mistakenly treating the order as a show cause notice. The appellant had been granted unconditional stay in a previous appeal, indicating no intentional delay. The Tribunal found the delay was not intentional but due to a genuine misunderstanding, aligning with the principle from the Supreme Court's judgment in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy. As the delay was considered bona fide, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 293 days and allowed the appeal to proceed for further hearing along with other related appeals.

---