2026 (1) TMI 1155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(hereinafter to be referred as 'the said Act') 3. However, learned counsel for the respondent points out that when this appeal was filed 63 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the same was not accompanied by any application seeking condonation of delay. Upon this defect being pointed out by the Registry on 4th April, 2024, such application was filed only on 18th March, 2025. 4. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this appeal could be regarded as lawfully presented only on 18th March, 2025 after a delay of 428 days. He submitted that there was no explanation for this delay of 428 days and therefore, the delay condonation application should be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant rel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....scribed period of limitation. For these 63 days, the explanation offered undoubtedly constitutes sufficient cause. Secondly, after the Registry pointed out the defect, a formal application seeking condonation of delay was filed. There was, some delay in filing this application. However, in such matters, it is not merely the length of the delay but the quality of the explanation offered that is crucial. 9. The supplementary affidavit indicates how three officials were transferred. It also indicates that the matter was missed due to communication gaps, resulting in the failure to file a formal application for condonation of delay. 10. Upon cumulative consideration of all these circumstances, we are satisfied that a sufficient cause has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t they concerned the issue as to whether galvanisation would amount to manufacturing activity under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, no question regarding the delayed issue of the show-cause notice was proposed. This issue goes to the root of the matter, and in the absence of any challenge to this finding, there was no question of admitting this appeal on merits, i.e. on the question as to whether galvanising activity constitutes manufacture. 16. Perhaps, realising this lacuna, the revenue has filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 12058 of 2025, urging a third question relating to the finding of the CESTAT that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked. 17. The CESTAT, in its impugned....