Court dismisses appeal challenging CESTAT order due to delay. Medical certificate inconsistencies lead to time-barred appeal.

The court dismissed the appeal challenging the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order due to the delay in filing beyond the limitation period. The appellant's claim of suffering from Jaundice was doubted as medical certificates for "Lumbar Spondylosis" contradicted this assertion. The court found inconsistencies and lack of explanation for the delay, leading to the rejection of the condonation application. Consequently, the court ruled the appeal as time-barred and dismissed it without considering the merits.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 05.03.2015.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Genuineness of medical certificates submitted for condonation of delay.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order of the CESTAT dated 05.03.2015, received on 26.03.2015, beyond the six-month limitation period for filing an appeal. The appeal was filed on 22.09.2016, causing a delay of about one year. The appellant cited attempts to communicate with authorities and arrange funds, attributing the delay to suffering from Jaundice for 3-4 months. However, medical certificates submitted did not support the claim of Jaundice, raising doubts about their genuineness.

2. The medical certificates issued for "Lumbar Spondylosis" contradicted the appellant's claim of suffering from Jaundice. The court expressed skepticism over the authenticity of the certificates due to spelling errors and inconsistencies in the medical conditions mentioned. No application for correction was filed despite discrepancies, and unexplained periods in the timeline further weakened the appellant's case for condonation of delay.

3. The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing the lack of merit due to discrepancies in the medical certificates and failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the court declined to delve into the merits of the appeal, ruling it as time-barred and dismissing it accordingly.

---