Augustine Thomas vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 388 & 389/2013 ST dated 19/12/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Cus
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A delay condoned under the limitation provisions requires a bona fide reason; a litigant's unverified belief that a third party would file the appeal, unsupported by evidence that the appeal papers were handed over to that party, does not amount to a bona fide reason for condoning a delay of 467 days. Where an appellant seeks condonation of delay on the ground that a principal or co-party was expected to pursue the appeal, the appellant must show that the impugned order was brought to the notice of that party and that the appeal papers were handed over for filing; absent such evidence, the appellant's own inaction after receipt of the order cannot be accepted as a bona fide cause, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 388 & 389/2013 ST dated 19/12/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax , COCHIN (Appeal) ]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes
Augustine Thomas Koottakalli House, Near Police Station IRITTY - 670730 KERALA Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Calicut CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT, KOZHIKODE, - 673001 KERALA
Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Raja Kannan, Advocate MENON & PAI IS PRESS ROAD, COCHIN KOCHI - 682018 KERALA For the Appellant
Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 21/09/2015
Date of Decision: 21/09/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21978 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
After hearing both the sides duly represented by Mr. Raja Kannan, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) for the Revenue, we find that the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (A) on 19.12.2013 and the same was received by the appellant on 23.12.2013. Thereafter one corrigendum as regards the appeal number was issued on 10.1.2014 and was received by the appellant on 16.1.2014. The normal period of limitation for filing the appeal against the impugned order expired on or around 19.3.2014 whereas the appeal stands filed on 8.7.2015 with a delay of 467 days.
2. The only reasons forwarded by the appellant for such a huge delay is that the service tax stands confirmed against him as a sub-broker of one M/s. Geojit Financial Services Ltd. Identical matters were going on with other sub-brokers and it was M/s. Geojit Financial Services Ltd. which was taking care of all the litigations. Inasmuch as the appellant stepped out of the franchise of M/s. Geojit Financial Services Ltd. in or around April 2014, they did not pursue the matter further, under a belief that M/s. Geojit Financial Services Ltd. would take care of the same. It is only when Revenue approached for recovery, they engaged a counsel and filed the appeal.
3. There is no dispute about the date of receipt of the impugned order and the fact that the impugned order stands passed against the appellant and not against M/s. Geojit Financial Services Ltd. Even though the appellants contention was that they were under a belief that the appeal would be filed by M/s. Geojit Financial Services Ltd., he has not shown us any evidence on record to show that the appeal papers were taken by him to M/s. Geojit Financial Services Ltd. and were handed over to them for filing of further appeal. Unless the fact of passing of the order against the appellant is brought to the notice of their principal M/s. Geojit Financial Services Ltd., naturally the appeal could not have been filed by M/s. Geojit Financial Services Ltd. on their own. No action was taken by the appellant after the receipt of the impugned order, as such filing of the appeal after a period of around 467 days, only when the Revenue approached them for recovery cannot be accepted to be a bona fide reason for condoning the huge delay. Accordingly, we reject the COD application. As a consequence, the appeal also gets dismissed as barred by limitation.
(Order pronounced in open court)
ASHOK K ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
rv 3
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