M/S. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No.28
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The application for condonation of delay is rejected because a delay of 28 days caused by the appellant's failure to respond to the Registry's objection with due care, and by the departure of the person handling the matter, is not a sufficient cause for condonation; an explanation that does not commend itself to ordinary reason and a lack of due care by the litigant in the face of a defect are not sufficient cause for condoning delay. Where the appeal is taken on merits, the Tribunal declines to admit it because the penalty imposed is only Rs. 5,000 in each case, and entertaining an appeal of such trivial monetary value would be a waste of the Tribunal's time, so the appeal is dismissed together with the condonation application.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No.28 & 29/2014 (P), dated 05.12.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai ]
M/s. JEEVAN DIESELS & ELECTRICALS LTD. APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri K.S. Jain,
[No authori-zation found in file] Auth. Rep.
For the Respondent Shri K. P. Muralidharan, AC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 27-05-2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 40592 / 2015
The application for condonation of delay is for 28 days. The plea raised in that application is that the Order-in-Appeal contained two numbers. Appellant filed only one appeal against impugned order. But Registry pointed out that two appeals should have been filed for two different causes. Accordingly, appellant went back to prepare two appeals. But in the mean time, the person who looked after the matter left his job. Therefore, there was a delay of 28 days.
2. Even for a second, the reason give above does not appeal to common sense. No doubt, the litigant shall never cause prejudice to himself making delay. But this case is totally an unbelievable case as to how the absence of a person shall cause delay in filing a second copy of the appeal (technically) to result in delay. The appellant being conscious of objection of Registry did not respond to law with due care. Such an approach not being appreciable by law, the delay is not condonable, for which the application is dismissed.
2. Inspite of the above situation, when the merit of the case is looked into, it shows that there was delay in filing the return. Appellant submitted before the authority below was that due to the website of the BSNL operating at a very low pace, return could not be filed electronically. That did not appeal to the authority below. The only penalty imposed in each case is Rs.5,000/- each. Even considering such smallness of the amount involved, taking of the appeal for admission will be a colossal waste of time of the Tribunal. Therefore, appeal as well as application for CODl is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 29-05-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 27.05.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 29.05.2015
Fair Order Typing 29.05.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch 01/06/2015
4 E/COD/40354/2015 and E/40905/2015
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