TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur). In Form ST-V, filed with the appeal, it has been stated by the appellant that the aforesaid order dated 15 December, 2014 was received by the appellant on 22 December, 2014 and this is what has also been stated by the appellant in paragraph 2 of the delay condonation application. The said paragraph also mentions that the appeal should have been filed by 21 March, 2015. Therefore, there is a delay of 1390 days i.e. about 3 years and 10 months, since the appeal was actually filed in the office only on 29 March, 2019. 3. The reasons that have been stated in the application are as follows: (i) All legal issues including those relating to taxation are handle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led on 29 March, 2019. 4. It is on the basis of the averments made in the application that learned Counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. The contention is that as soon as the order was brought to the notice of the Branch Manager, a decision was taken to file the appeal. In this connection, learned Counsel pointed out that the Branch Accountant did not place the order before the Branch Manager before he retired and it is only when a recovery notice was received that efforts were made to trace out the order which was ultimately retrieved and appeal was filed. 5. Shri R.K. Manjhi, learned Authorised Representative of the Department, however, submitted that the inordinate delay o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....delay of 3 years and 10 months in filing the appeal. It is not in dispute that the appellant had received the order dated 15 December, 2014 on 22 December, 2014. As to who has to take a decision for filing the appeal is an internal matter of the appellant and any alleged failure on the part of the Branch Accountant in informing the Branch Manager about the order cannot be made a ground for condoning this inordinate delay of 3 years and 10 months in filing the appeal. This apart, when the new incumbent joined in March, 2015, it was his duty to have brought the order to the notice of the competent person required to take a decision for filing an appeal. 8. The decisions relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative of the Department....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but because of his negligence, the appeal could not be filed in time. The Division Bench after relying upon decisions of Supreme Court, rejected the delay condonation application and the observations are: "4. On careful consideration of the arguments of both sides and perusal of the records, we find that the impugned Order-inAppeal was passed on 30-7-2014 by the Commissioner (Appeals), after granting personal hearing on 18-6-2014 to Shri Paresh Sheth, Advocate appearing for the appellant. The applicant has stated that the concerned clerk had received the impugned order on 7-8-2014. Hence, the statutory limit to file the appeal expired on 7-11-2014. The appeal was filed only on 23-12-2015, thereby causing a delay of 413 days. The c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shri Anil Singh was activated when a recovery letter was received from Revenue, to recover the adjudicated liability. 3. Though the ld. Counsel for the petitioners seeks to support the application for condonation on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnana v. M. Krishnamurthy - (1998) 7 SCC 123 = 2008 (228) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.) and a misc. order of this Tribunal in Cosmos Casting India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Raipur reported in 2013 (197) ECR 101 (Tri-New Delhi) = 2012 (286) E.L.T. 721 (Tri. - Del.), we are not persuaded that these decisions propound a norm that absence of mala fides is the sole criterion for condonation of delay. A Limitation Act as is well-known is a statute of repose; and after the specified perio....