TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the facts of the case: Sl. No. Particulars Date 1. Date of issue of Show Cause Notice 22-3-2006 2. Central Excise Service case handled by Mr. Prabhu Dev Talur (Employee of appellant company) 3. Date of passing of order 27-3-2007 4. Date of receipt of acknowledgement as per EMS speed post. (But order not received by the appellant since employee who dealt with excise/service tax matters received the order and did not bring it to the notice of the management). 29-3-2007 5. Last date for filing appeal on the basis of acknowledgement as per EMS Speed Post. 28-6-2007 6. Date on which Mr. Prabhu Dev Talu left the appellant company 31-7-2007 7. Date when the appellant wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that immediately management took steps to procure a copy of Order-in-Original, which was given to them on 5-2-2008 and they filed the appeal on 19-2-2008. He submits that delay may be condoned. He would rely on the following case laws: (i) Krishna Couriers v. CCE - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 86 (Tribunal) = 2008 (223) E.L.T. 92 (T) (ii) Rex Advertisers v. CST - 2006 (1) S.T.R. 312 (T) (iii) Evergreen Plywood Indus. (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 2002 (148) E.L.T. 788 (T) (iv) Shakti Foam Udyog v. CCE - 2008 11 S.T.R. 429 (Tribunal) = 2007 (208) E.L.T. 273 (Tribunal) (v) Gosson Air Conditioning v. CCE - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 96 (P&H) = 2006 (205) E.L.T. 44 (P&H) 3. The learned Joint CDR on the other hand submits that there is an acknowledgement of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd November, 2007 and after pursuing with the department, the applicant company was served with a copy of order on 5-2-2008. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the sworn affidavits filed by three responsible employees of the company. It is also noticed that revenue has also admitted the fact that the Manager/employee of the company has resigned from the company and might not bring the receipt of such Order-in-Original to the notice of the applicant company. Though, the action of the Manager/employee who did such a mischievous act needs punishment in accordance with law, we are unable to accept the contention of the revenue that the lapse of the employee is lapse of the applicant company. Every business or company, employs an individual....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t by lodging an appeallate. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being do....