M/S. Maithan Ispat Ltd vs Commr. Of Central Excise &
- CitationExcise Appeal No. 75403/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A delay in filing an appeal may be condoned only upon a showing of sufficient cause; the explanation that an officer inadvertently kept the order in his personal almirah and forgot to file in time, which the tribunal characterised as complete negligence on the part of the appellant rather than a bona fide mistake, does not constitute sufficient cause, and an application for condonation of delay founded on such an explanation is therefore dismissed, with the appeal and stay application falling with it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.40/CE/BBSR-I/2013 dated-18/11/2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, BBSR-I)
For approval and signature of: DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
======================================================
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 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 ?
M/s. Maithan Ispat Ltd.
APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax, BBSR-I RESPONDENT(S)
APPEARANCE
Sri Sanjay Bhowmik, Advocate FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri S.K. Naskar, A.C. (A.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM:
DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 05/06/2015
ORDER NO : FO/A/75277/2015 Per DR.D.M. MISRA Heard both sides.
2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 34 days in filing the Appeal before this forum. Explaining the reasons, the Ld. Advocate Shri Bhowmik for the applicant submits that the Indirect taxes Manager Shri S.K. Patra, has inadvertently kept the order-in-appeal in his personal almirah and accordingly forgotten to file the appeal in time. The Ld. Advocate submits that the mistake is bonafide and be condoned.
3. I do not find the reasons explained by the Ld. Advocate and mentioned in their application could be considered as sufficient cause, warranting condonation of the delay. On the other hand, it is complete negligence on the part of the Appellant. In the result, MA (COD) is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal and stay application are also dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) Sd/- 5/06/15 (D.M. MISRA) Judicial Member
k.b/-
Excise Appeal No. 75403/2014 2
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