2022 (1) TMI 968 - AT - Central Excise

Dismissal of Appeal Due to Unreasonable Delay

M/s Worldwide Oilfield Machines Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Pune-II

The appeal for condonation of a 359-day delay was dismissed by the Member (Judicial) due to the company's negligence in entrusting important ... Condonation of delay of 359 days in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay existed or not - delay occurred due to the negligence of security guard in handing over the letter to the official concerned - responsibility of the company for employing irresponsible guard for the purpose - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, it is a refund application that has been rejected and by delaying the process appellant could not have gained much. However, having regard to the content of the affidavit mainly at para 2 that the said security guard had not attached any importance to a letter delivered to him by Speed-post, left it unattended and forgot to hand it over to the concern official would itself speak volumes about the negligent approach of the appellant company in authorising the security guard as Dak receiving staff and not becoming vigilant in cross checking whether inward entry of correspondences were effected properly - as has been accepted as a settled position of law, period of delay being a significant factor to weigh the same with sufficient cause is held to be a question of fact and the assessment of the same is discretionary in nature. In view of the fact that the negligent act of the company in not assigning the responsibility of receiving at least important dak to a responsible person and leaving the same at the disposal of the security guard for which 359 days delay had occurred cannot be treated as a reasonable ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal - the COD application seeking condonation of delay of 359 days in filing the appeal is rejected. Issues:Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to negligence leading to 359 days delay.Analysis:The case involved a COD application for condonation of a 359-day delay in filing an appeal. The Appellant's Counsel argued for a liberal approach citing Supreme Court orders, emphasizing that the company should not suffer due to the security guard's negligence in handling the order. On the other hand, the Authorised Representative for the Respondent-department presented 10 judgments, highlighting contradictory findings on condonability based on the cause of delay. The Member (Judicial) examined the submissions, including the affidavit of the security guard and appellant's written note. It was noted that the security guard's negligence in handling the letter, which led to the delay, reflected the company's lack of vigilance in overseeing correspondence handling. The Member considered the delay significant, nearing a year, and referred to a Supreme Court judgment distinguishing between inordinate delays and delays of a few days, emphasizing the need for caution in cases of substantial delay. The Member concluded that the negligent act of the company in entrusting important correspondence to an irresponsible person did not constitute a reasonable ground for condonation of the delay, leading to the rejection of the COD application and dismissal of the appeal due to unreasonable delay.In summary, the judgment focused on the negligence of the company in handling important correspondence, leading to a significant delay in filing the appeal. The Member emphasized the need to differentiate between delays of varying lengths and the discretion involved in assessing sufficient cause for condonation. Ultimately, the delay of 359 days was deemed unreasonable, resulting in the rejection of the COD application and the dismissal of the appeal.