TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1768
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... jurisdiction of the CESTAT, Hyderabad preferring an appeal along with an application to condone the delay of 2059 days (i.e. approximately five years) in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 2. In the order under appeal, the Tribunal observed that the justification put forth by the Learned Counsel for the appellant, that the Managing Director had sent a copy of the order-in-original to his advocate for filing the appeal and, further, there was no follow up from him, was not properly evidenced nor were any efforts made by them for filing the appeal within time; the reasons put forth, in the grounds, for condonation of the delay were not acceptable; and the appellant had not put forth convincing evidence which needed consideration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal by the appellate Tribunal, if the Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. In the present case, the Tribunal has assigned reasons, for its refusal to exercise discretion under Section 86(5) of the Finance Act, to condone the inordinate delay of five years in preferring the appeal. Such exercise of discretion, in our view, does not give rise to a substantial question of law warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, to entertain the appeal. 5. Since Sri C.V. Narasimham, Learned Counsel for the appellant, has placed reliance on certain judgments of the Supreme Court, of this Court and the Delhi High Court, it is necessary to refer thereto. In N. Balakrishnan v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, the delay was condoned by the Tribunal. 7. In Kotdwar Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut - 2017 (356) E.L.T. 417 (All.), the question that arose for consideration was whether the CESTAT was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 493 days in filing the appeal on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to condone the delay of more than 30 days. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court, in N. Balakrishnan (supra), a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that there was no dispute that the ownership of the appellant was in transition, and had ultimately changed; the employee dealing with excise matters had left the company without revealing that the impugned order was passed, there was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....smissed by the Tribunal. While holding that no question of law arises in cases of this nature, the Division Bench observed that a statutory right of appeal cannot be rendered redundant by dismissal of an application to condone the delay on technical grounds. The jurisdiction conferred on this Court, under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, can be exercised only if a substantial question of law arises for its consideration. Exercise of discretion by the Tribunal, in refusing to condone the inordinate delay of around five years, does not give rise to a substantial question of law warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. Unlike in Satackline Systems Private Ltd. (supra), where the delay was less than....