Ajit Kumar Gupta, Director vs Cc&Ce And St, Allahabad
- CitationExcise Appeal No. 59111 of 2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appeal is filed after an inordinate delay, and the appellant neither explains the period of delay from the original order to the filing of the appeal nor shows sufficient cause for it, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed; and where the condonation application falls, the connected miscellaneous application, the stay application and the appeal itself fall with it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Excise CoD Nos. 59790/2013 & 55019/ 2014 and
Excise Misc. Application No. 59791 of 2013
Excise Stay Application No. 59789 of 2013 in
Excise Appeal No. 59111 of 2013
(Arising out of order in original No. MP(33/2004 to 38/2004, Dem-39/2004 to 50/2004) 34 to 39, 40, 41a, 41b, 42a, 42b to 49, 50a, 50b, 51 of 2004) dated 19.11.2004 and demand recovery letter dated 18.01.2013 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad).
Ajit Kumar Gupta, Director Appellant
Vs.
CC&CE and ST, Allahabad Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Ishan Shishu, Advocate for the appellant
Shri M.S. Negi, DR for the Respondent
Coram: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. 52140/ 2015
Per: Ashok Jindal:
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order confirming a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Appellant has also filed two applications for condonation of delay, one miscellaneous application for filing the affidavit on record and also filed an application for stay of the impugned demand.
2. In the application for condonation of delay, the appellant has failed to disclose the reason for causing delay from 01.03.2013 to 31.08.2013 and only stated that there is a delay of 87 days in filing the appeal, therefore delay be condoned as the delay was beyond the control of the appellant who was ill during that period.
3. We have perused the records. On perusal of the record, we find that the impugned order was passed by the adjudicating authority on 19.11.2004 imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh on the appellant under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rule, 1944. Against the said order, the appellant has filed appeal only on 19.07.2013 which is almost a delay of eight years and eight months whereas the appellant is claiming delay of 87 days and have not explained why the appeal was not filed by the appellant during the period eight years eight months. Moreover, we find that the appellant has approached to the Honble Allahabad High Court in Tax Writ No. 342 of 2013 wherein the Honble High Court also dismissed their Writ Petition vide order dated 21.03.2013.
4. As the appellant has failed to disclose the reasons for non-filing of the appeal in time and there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal before us. In these facts, we do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, we dismiss the applications for condonation of delay. Consequent to that the miscellaneous application, stay application and appeal are also dismissed.
(Ashok Jindal)
Member (Judicial)
(B. Ravichandran)
Member (Technical)
Pant
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free