Court denies condonation for delayed appeal filings due to insufficient explanation and early access to order copies.

The Court dismissed the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals challenging Order-in-Appeal, citing the lack of credible explanation for the delay. Despite attributing the delay to issues with obtaining the order copy and incomplete address on the Courier's Airway Bill, discrepancies in the timeline of events and the early acquisition of certified copies undermined the appellant's claim of unawareness about the order. The Court found the delay explanation provided by the appellant to be insufficient and ultimately rejected the condonation applications.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals challenging Order-in-Appeal, Condonation of delay application, Circumstances leading to the delay, Verification of delay explanation, Dismissal of applications seeking condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals filed by the assessee challenging Order-in-Appeal Nos. 270 to 272/95 (100 to 102-Raj.) dated 5-12-1996. The appeals were filed after a delay of 80 days, prompting the appellants to file applications for condonation of delay. The delay was attributed to the Manager, Indirect Taxation resigning without handing over the order copy, leading to a delay in preparing and filing the appeals. The subsequent explanation detailed the efforts made to obtain the certified copy of the order and the delay caused by incomplete address in the Courier's Airway Bill, causing a delay in delivering the appeal papers to the registry.

In the application for condonation of delay, it was revealed that the Manager in charge of the case did not inform the Head of the Department or other officers about the impugned order due to his resignation. The delay in filing the appeal was further explained by the Managing Director of another concern alerting the appellant about the order, prompting immediate action to prepare and file the appeal. However, the affidavit submitted by the Head of Taxation Department revealed discrepancies in the timeline of events and the awareness of the order within the company, casting doubt on the credibility of the delay explanation provided.

The Department had sent the impugned order copy to the appellant twice, with the certified copy obtained after the Managing Director of another concern alerted the appellant about the order. However, upon verification of the copies of the impugned order produced in the appeals, it was found that the certified copies were obtained on 15-1-1997, contradicting the appellant's claim of unawareness about the order until May 1997. The Court concluded that the delay explanation provided was not credible, as the appellant had obtained certified copies much earlier than claimed, indicating awareness of the order within the company.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the applications seeking condonation of delay, as the explanation offered for the delay in preparing the appeal and handing over the papers to the Courier was deemed unacceptable. The Court found that the delay was not adequately justified, even when considering the conduct of the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the condonation applications.

---