Appeal delay not condoned due to negligence. Tribunal cites Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal before the Tribunal, which was delayed by approximately 332 days. The Appellant's explanation for the delay was deemed vague and unsubstantiated, leading to a finding of negligence on their part. Citing a judgment of the Supreme Court, the Tribunal concluded that the delay lacked merit and subsequently dismissed the Appeal.

---

---

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

In this case, the main issue revolves around the application seeking condonation of a delay of approximately 332 days in filing an Appeal before the Tribunal. The Appellant, represented by Advocate Shri K.I. Vyas, explained the delay by stating that they had a contract with a supplier for the purchase of imported steam coal, which led to a dispute regarding the classification of the coal. The Appellant believed that the supplier would file the Appeal on their behalf, but when they received a recovery notice for confirmed dues, they discovered that the Appeal had not been filed. The Appellant argued that there was no intentional delay on their part and requested the delay to be condoned. However, the Revenue's representative argued that the Appellant had not taken necessary steps to ensure the Appeal was filed, as required by law. The Revenue contended that the explanation provided for the delay was vague and unsubstantiated, citing a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for support.

The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had received the order from the Commissioner (Appeals) on a specific date but failed to take further action to confirm whether the Appeal had been prepared and filed by the supplier. The Tribunal highlighted that the Appellant was aware that they needed to verify and sign the Appeal papers themselves, and the failure to do so demonstrated negligence. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal concluded that the delay of 332 days could not be condoned as it lacked merit. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the Appeal as well.

---