Court denies condonation for 364-day delay in filing appeals against CESTAT order.

The Court dismissed the applications seeking condonation of a 364-day delay in filing appeals against a common order issued by the Custom Excise Service Tax Appellant Tribunal (CESTAT). Despite the Appellant's unsatisfactory explanation for the delay and failure to provide a better affidavit detailing the timeline of events, the Court declined to grant further time. The Court emphasized the importance of providing valid and timely justifications for delays in legal proceedings, leading to the dismissal of both applications and appeals.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals against a common order passed by CESTAT.
2. Unsatisfactory explanation for the delay in filing appeals.
3. Consideration of the delay period and reasons for condonation.
4. Decision on whether to grant further time for filing a better affidavit.
5. Failure to provide a satisfactory explanation leading to dismissal of applications and appeals.

Analysis:

1. The case involved two applications by the Customs Department seeking condonation of a 364-day delay in filing appeals against a common order issued by the Custom Excise Service Tax Appellant Tribunal (CESTAT) on January 12, 2015.

2. The explanation provided for the delay included the withdrawal of an appeal from the Supreme Court with permission to file the appeal before the Delhi High Court within one month. The delay was also attributed to the reconstitution of the legal panel and the transfer of the case file to the current counsel in December 2016.

3. The Court found the explanation unsatisfactory and directed the Appellant to submit a better affidavit detailing the timeline of events leading to the filing of the appeals. However, despite the Court's order, the Appellant failed to provide the necessary information promptly.

4. During the subsequent hearing, the Appellant's counsel informed the Court that they had not received instructions from the Department despite requesting details to prepare a better affidavit. The Court noted that the appeals were filed much later than the stipulated deadline, raising concerns about the delay and lack of seriousness in handling the matter.

5. The Court declined to grant additional time for filing a better affidavit, citing the significant unexplained delay in the case. It emphasized that no satisfactory explanation was provided for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the applications seeking condonation of the 364-day delay in filing the appeals.

6. Consequently, the Court dismissed both the applications and the appeals, emphasizing the importance of providing valid and timely justifications for delays in legal proceedings to avoid adverse outcomes.

---