2015 (10) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....10.2013. As such, taking into consideration the period of 3 months provided under the statute for filing the appeal, the limitation expired on around 06.01.2014. The appeals actually stand filed on 28.11.2014 with a delay of 325 days. 2. The appellant in their COD application have submitted that all the Central Excise matters were being looked after by their two employees one Mr. Ravishankar and the other Mrs. Paniveni G. After receipt of the impugned orders on 07.10.2013, the same were kept on the table of Mrs. Paniveni who was on leave and was due to resume office in the 3 rd week of October 2013. As the said Mrs. Paniveni did not resume office and continued her maternity leave, the administrative charge of Mrs. Peniveni was handed over ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e second person who was also looking after the Central Excise matters, and as such, he was in a position to file the appeal. Learned DR also draws my attention to the impugned orders wherein it stands recorded that Mr. Ravishankar appeared before the authorities. As such he submits that for all Central Excise matters, it was Mr. Ravishankar, who was responsible and the appellant has not shown any evidence on record to substantiate their submission that Mrs. Paniveni is also responsible for Central Excise matters of the company. Learned DR has also referred to various decisions. 5. The issue required to be considered in the present appeal is as to whether there is any plausible and acceptable explanation for condoning the enormous delay of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mechanically. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that though they were conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of the assessee, liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice. However the Supreme Court did not accept the appellant's claim on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes. 7. By applying the ratio of the above decision, I am of the considered opinion that the fact of one of the concerned employee, who in any case has also not been shown to be associated with the matter, going on maternity leave cannot be considered to be a reasonable cause for leading to su....