TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal dismisses appeal due to delay application rejection</h1> <h3>INDIAN OIL CORPORATION Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> INDIAN OIL CORPORATION Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE - 1990 (47) E.L.T. 593 (Tribunal) Issues:Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay applicationAnalysis:The appellants filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Calcutta, which was upheld by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Howrah. The appellants sought condonation of delay, attributing it to the order-in-appeal being received at a different office within their organization. The delay was explained due to lack of communication between different divisions, absence of proper maintenance of records, and turmoil within the office. The Senior Manager representing the appellants argued for condonation based on these grounds.The Departmental Representative opposed the condonation of delay, citing the lack of a proper application, absence of detailed facts, verification, or supporting affidavit. It was contended that negligence was evident on the part of the appellants, as they failed to explain the day-to-day delay in filing the appeal. The representative argued that misplacing of papers in the office was not a valid ground for condonation, and such applications were typically not entertained by the Bench.After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found no reason to condone the delay. The application for condonation was deemed inadequate, lacking proper format, verification, and signatures. The Tribunal noted that the delay was significant, with the appeal being filed 64 days late. The appellants failed to provide a clear explanation for the delay at various stages and did not rectify the application despite seeking time. The Tribunal emphasized the need for diligence, especially from Public Sector Undertakings, and concluded that the delay was not justifiable. As a result, the condonation application was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.The Tribunal pronounced the operative part of the order on 9-2-1990, concluding the hearing.
TaxTMI 