Manufacturer's Appeal Dismissed Due to Significant Delay in Filing

The Court dismissed the appeal filed by a manufacturer under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, seeking to quash the Tribunal's order due to a significant delay of 2743 days in filing the appeal. The Court rejected the appellant's argument of bonafide delay, emphasizing that the mere receipt of a notice for the date of hearing in 2017 did not justify condoning the extensive delay, considering the appellant had received notice of the department's appeal in 2010. The Court found no substantial legal question for determination, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the delay and lack of merit in the arguments presented.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act seeking quashing of Tribunal's order.
- Demand of duty for short payment for specific periods.
- Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay.
- Argument of bonafide delay by the appellant.
- Consideration of delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by a manufacturer under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, seeking to quash the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Corrugated Boxes, received show cause notices from the Central Excise department for short payment of duty for specific periods. The adjudicating authority dropped the demand, but the respondent-department filed an appeal which was partially decided in their favor by the Commissioner (Appeals). Both the department and the appellant then filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeal on the grounds of delay, with the appellant seeking condonation of a significant delay of 2743 days.

The appellant argued that the decision not to file an appeal initially was reconsidered upon receiving notice of the department's appeal before the Tribunal in 2017, leading to the delayed filing. The Court, after hearing the appellant's counsel, disagreed with the argument of bonafide delay. It was noted that the appellant had received notice of the department's appeal back in 2010, and the mere receipt of a notice for the date of hearing from the Tribunal in 2017 did not constitute a valid ground to condone the extensive delay. The Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's decision to not condone the delay of 2743 days, as the reasons provided were deemed sufficient.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that no question of law, let alone a substantial one, arose for determination in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the findings regarding the delay in filing the appeal and the lack of merit in the arguments presented.

---