Tribunal dismisses appeal due to significant delay in filing against Order-in-Original on production capacity.

The Tribunal refused to condone a 1454-day delay in filing an appeal against an Order-in-Original determining the Annual Capacity of Production at Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills. The appellant's claim of unawareness regarding the order was rejected, with the Tribunal emphasizing the appellant's negligence in pursuing the appeal despite being fully aware of the impugned order. Despite arguments for condonation based on lack of awareness and past judgments, the Tribunal found the appellant's lack of diligence inexcusable, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Condensation of delay in filing appeal against Order-in-Original regarding determination of Annual Capacity of Production at Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills.

Analysis:
The appellant sought condonation of a 1454-day delay in filing an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 09/2000, dated 14-3-2000, which determined the Annual Capacity of Production at their Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills. The appellant claimed they were unaware of the impugned order as it was not mentioned in subsequent show cause notices. The delay was argued to be unintentional, drawing parallels with judgments condoning delays in similar situations. The learned Counsel emphasized the need for condonation due to lack of awareness. However, the learned SDR opposed the prayer, highlighting that the impugned order was indeed brought up in proceedings. The SDR pointed out that the appellants were negligent in not taking steps to file the appeal despite being aware of the order.

The Tribunal noted the enormous delay and rejected the appellant's claim of unawareness regarding the impugned order. The Security Officer had received the order, and the appellant's excuse of not passing it to the Manager was deemed unacceptable. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument and emphasized that they should have been diligent in pursuing the matter. Despite the appellant's reference to previous judgments for condonation, the Tribunal differentiated the present case due to clear negligence on the appellant's part. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant had not chosen to file an appeal against the impugned order despite being fully aware of it. Consequently, the Tribunal refused to condone the 1454-day delay, citing patent negligence on the appellant's part. The Tribunal rejected the COD application, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the appellant's lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal against the Order-in-Original determining the Annual Capacity of Production. Despite arguments for condonation based on lack of awareness and previous judgments, the Tribunal found the appellant's negligence inexcusable, leading to the rejection of the appeal due to the significant delay in filing.

---