Kirit Kumar Thaker vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

Both passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-I.)

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE

HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HONBLE SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any Authorative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?

Kirit Kumar Thaker Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, BBSR-I Respondent (s)

Appearance:

NONE for the Appellant (s)

Shri M.Chattopadhyay, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s)

CORAM:

Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member(Technical)

Date of Hearing:- 14.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 14.09.2015

ORDER NO.FO/A/75500-75501/2015

Per Dr. D.M. Misra.

1. None present for the applicant despite notice. The matter has been listed for hearing on several occasions i.e. 02.12.2012, 22.01.2015, 07.07.2015 and 10.09.2015. On 10.09.2015, the matter was adjourned at the request of ld.A.R. for the Revenue to study and calculate the exact number of days delay in filing the Appeal before this Tribunal.

2. The ld.AR for the Revenue drew our attention to their written submission dated 02.03.2015, wherein, the Applicant had stated the delay as 3014 days in filing the Appeal before this Tribunal. The ld.AR for the Revenue however submits that the delay was 1781 days and not 3014 days. He submits that no reason has been shown for the delay in their Miscellaneous Applications, except ignorance of law and thereafter through their written submission dated 02.03.2015 it was stated that one of the employees of the appellant though received the Order did not hand over the same to the management and also due to the sickness of the Appellant. He has submitted that some stray illegible prescriptions of ailments like ENT, Eye and Rheumatism have been enclosed with the Application. It is his submission that delay could be condoned only when bona fide reasons supported by evidence are placed before this Tribunal. In support he has referred to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd.  2012 (277) ELT 289(SC).

3. We find that the matter has been rolling since December, 2014 and the Applicant had neither appeared nor represented through any authorized representative and kept on filing written submissions in support of the Application. On careful analysis of the submissions advanced in the Application as well as through written submission from time to time we find no plausible, cogent and convincing explanation narrating the inordinate delay of 1781 days(calculated wrongly as 3014 days by the Applicant) has been stated. It is not necessary to re-state the law governing condonation of delay. It would suffice to state that in the event an applicant could able to produce bona fide and sufficient reasons, then only the delay could be condoned. In the present case, we do not find any bona fide reason supported by evidence, hence, the application does not carry any merit for consideration. In these premises, Miscellaneous Applications(COD) are dismissed. Consequently Appeals and Stay Applications are also dismissed.

(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)

SD/ SD/

(H.K.THAKUR) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm

3 Appeal No.ST-75336, 75337/14