CESTAT grants condonation of delay in appeal; appeal abated post-appellant's demise. Emphasizes timely filings & legal effects.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the condonation of delay application in filing the appeal due to the appellant's prompt action upon learning about the order. The appeal abated following the appellant's death, leading to its disposal. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of timely appeals and recognized the legal consequences of a party's death during the appeal process, distinguishing the case from Sunbeam Garments (P) Ltd., vs. Commissioner -2010 (256) ELT A90 (SC).

---

---

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, Abatement of appeal due to death of appellant

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal was considered. The Revenue claimed that the impugned order was dispatched to the appellant on a specific date but was not served upon them. The appellant only became aware of the order later, leading to a delay in filing the appeal. The appellant promptly approached the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) upon learning about the order, indicating no deliberate delay on their part. The Tribunal, after considering the explanations provided, allowed the condonation of delay application.

Another issue addressed in the judgment was the abatement of the appeal due to the death of the appellant. The appellant's counsel informed the Tribunal about the recent demise of the appellant and provided a copy of the death certificate. Upon verification, the Tribunal noted the appellant's death and declared that the appeal abates as a result. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as abated.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the reasonable explanation provided for the delay in filing the appeal and the acknowledgment of the appellant's death, leading to the abatement of the appeal. The ruling in the case of Sunbeam Garments (P) Ltd., vs. Commissioner -2010 (256) ELT A90 (SC) was cited by the Authorised Representative for the Revenue, but the Tribunal found no deliberate latches on the part of the appellant. The judgment highlights the importance of timely filing of appeals and the legal implications of the death of a party during the appeal process.

---