M/S Nirmit Tele Infra Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 60/2013 dated 21/03/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals-II), HYDERABAD]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR 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

M/s Nirmit Tele Infra Pvt. Ltd Plot No.494, Subash Nagar, IDA, Jeedimetla, HYDERABAD  500055. Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad-IV POSNETT BHAWAN, TILAK ROAD, RAMKOTI, HYDERABAD, - 500001. Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. P.RAMA KRISHNA, ADV.

SAI RAM SADAN, 2-2-1109/11/2, BAGH AMBERPET, HYDERABAD  500013 For the Appellant Mr. Pakshirajan, A.R. For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 24/07/2015 Date of Decision: 24/07/2015 CORAM :

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21689 / 2015

PER ARCHANA WADHWA

The prayer in the COD application is to condone the delay of 218 days in filing the present appeal.

2. After hearing both sides, we find that the impugned order was passed on 21.3.2013 and as per the appellant, the same was received by them on 20.4.2013. As such, the normal period of limitation for filing the appeal expired on or around 20.7.2013 whereas the appeal stands filed on 24.2.2014, with a delay of 218 days.

3. The reasons of the said delay stands explained by learned advocate that the Managing Director of the company was suffering from Hypertensive Heart Disease and was advised bed rest. As such, the appeal could not be filed in time. In support of the above, he placed a certificate dated 23.2.2014 issued by Padmavaty Srinivasa Nursing Home.

4. It is not in dispute that the impugned order was received by the appellant on 20.4.2013. (Though after a period of one month from the date of passing). As per the appellant, it is their Cost Accountant, Shri N.C. Sitaramacharyulu was authorized person to deal with the matter in question, received the order. As such, he could have filed the appeal. On being questioned as to whether the Managing Director, who was not maintaining good health, was handling the affairs of the company or not, learned advocate submits that he was not regularly visiting factory but was handling the day-to-day affairs of the company on irregular basis.

5. After appreciating the submission, we note that it is not the appellants case that due to ill health of the Managing Director, their entire business came to a stand still. It is also not the M.D., who had to take the steps for prepare the appeal and filing the same in the Tribunal. We also note that the medical certificate placed on records shows that the appellant was suffering from Hypertension with effect from 1.7.2013 whereas the impugned order was received by the appellant on 20.4.2013 and there was sufficient time to file an appeal there against. Further, the other affairs of the company were being taken care of and as such, we find that ill health of the Managing Director is only an excuse. It is well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on flimsy grounds and there has to be a reasonable sufficient cause for such a huge delay of 218 days to be condoned. As such, we find no merits in the application. COD application is accordingly rejected.

6. As a consequence, stay petition as also appeal get dismissed as barred by limitation.

(Pronounced in open court)

(ASHOK KUMAR ARYA) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

/vc/