Appeal dismissed due to 665-day delay, citing gross negligence as reason for rejection.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's application for condonation of delay of 665 days in filing the appeal, citing gross negligence on the part of the appellant as the reason for the delay. Despite the appellant's explanation and reference to pending appeals on similar issues, the Tribunal held that gross negligence cannot be considered a sufficient cause for condoning such a significant delay. As a result, the appeal was dismissed for failure to file within the prescribed statutory period.

---

---

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of a delay of 665 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reason provided for the delay was the busy schedule of the Manager due to the re-allocation/shifting of their factory to another location. The appellant contended that the delay was unintentional and referred to pending appeals on similar issues before the Tribunal.

2. The Revenue argued that the delay was due to sheer negligence on the part of the appellant, citing a principle established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a previous case. The Revenue contended that the delay should not be condoned based on the explanation provided by the appellant and an affidavit submitted by the Manager.

3. The Tribunal noted that the order was communicated promptly to the appellant, but the appeal was not filed within the statutory period or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Tribunal found the reason for the delay, as stated by the appellant, to be insufficient, attributing it to gross negligence on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal distinguished the decisions cited by the appellant, stating that they were under different circumstances. Relying on the principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a previous case, the Tribunal held that gross negligence cannot be considered a sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of 665 days.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal due to the failure to file within the prescribed statutory period. The decision was pronounced in court, upholding the rejection of the application and the dismissal of the appeal.

---