1996 (12) TMI 189 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay; Duty Reconsideration Pending

The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to the lack of satisfactory explanation for the three-year ... Condonation of delay - delay in filing appeal - receipt/service of order - insufficiency of explanation for delay - consideration of merits not relevant to condonation application - nullity of order for exceeding terms of remandCondonation of delay - delay in filing appeal - insufficiency of explanation for delay - consideration of merits not relevant to condonation application - Whether the delay of over three years in filing the appeal was satisfactorily explained so as to warrant condonation. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found on the admitted facts that the applicants received the original order on 28-5-1993 but filed the appeal only on 28-10-1996, a delay of over three years. The applicants did not furnish any material particulars explaining how such delay occurred, offering only a general statement that they had been corresponding with authorities to seek modification of the order. The Tribunal held that correspondence alone, without particulars showing inability to file the appeal within time, does not amount to a satisfactory explanation. The Tribunal further observed that merits of the appeal are not to be gone into while deciding a condonation application; the narrow question is whether the delay is satisfactorily explained. Applying these principles to the facts, the condonation application failed for want of a sufficient explanation and was accordingly dismissed.Condonation of delay refused and the appeal dismissed for non-prosecution due to unexplained delay.Nullity of order for exceeding terms of remand - receipt/service of order - Whether the original order was a nullity on the ground that it exceeded the terms of the remand order. - HELD THAT: - The applicants contended that the original order was a nullity as it went beyond the terms of the remand. The Tribunal examined the contention against the admitted fact that the applicants had received the order (as recorded in their EA3 form and the Range Superintendent's letter). The decision relied upon by the applicants (where service was in dispute) was held distinguishable because in that case there was no conclusive evidence of service. Here, service/receipt was admitted by the applicants, and no substantive finding of nullity was made. The Tribunal therefore rejected the submission that the order was a nullity deserving of special treatment on the condonation application.Submission that the order was a nullity on remand-ground rejected as inapplicable on the admitted facts.Final Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay is dismissed for failure to satisfactorily explain the delay; consequently the appeal is dismissed. The contention that the original order was a nullity for exceeding remand terms was held inapplicable on the admitted receipt of the order. The applicant filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, claiming the original order was a nullity. The Tribunal found no satisfactory explanation for the three-year delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the application. The appeal was also dismissed as the delay was not satisfactorily explained. The duty demanded for the second time can be addressed separately.