Shri K V Ranga Kiran vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ...
- CitationAppeal No. 91/2013 dated 30/04/2013 passed by Commissioner Of Central Excise, Customs and S
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's power to entertain an appeal under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is subject to the appeal being filed within the prescribed period, and a delay in filing may be condoned only where the appellant shows sufficient cause for the delay, which must be a reasoned and justifiable explanation sufficient to account for the whole period of delay. A delay of 171 days is not excused by intermittent hospitalisation of a family member amounting to about 18 days in total, where the appellant does not explain how that hospitalisation prevented the filing of the appeal; such a long and unexplained delay, in the Tribunal's view, reflects negligence and carelessness, and the appeal is accordingly liable to be dismissed as time-barred.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ST/23019/2014-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 91/2013 dated 30/04/2013 passed by Commissioner Of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals I&III), 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? 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
Shri K V Ranga Kiran H. No 3-2-155/1, Vidyanagar Colony Kothagudem KHAMMAM DIST. TELANGANA Appellant(s) Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad-III OPP LB STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD - 500004. Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. R. Raghavendra Rao, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Pakshirajan, A.R. For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 31/08/2015 Date of Decision: 31/08/2015 CORAM :
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21799 / 2015
PER ASHOK KUMAR ARYA Appellant, namely K.V. Ranga Kiran, has filed an application for condonation of delay of 171 days in filing the appeal which has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 91/2013 dated 30.4.2013, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The appellant pleads that the impugned order was passed on 30/4/2013 but the same was received by him on 26/12/2013. The facts of the records show that this order dated 30.4.2013 was sent to his given address by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) just after passing the order itself. The appellants claim is that he did not get it then. Thereafter, on 26.12.2013, the appellant filed an application to the Superintendent of Central Excise to get a copy of the order.
3. The appellant pleads that the delay of 171 days is mainly on account of admission of his father in the hospital which has been for about 4 days in the month of February 2014 and again for about 8 days in the month of May 2014; thereafter again in the month of July for about 6 days for Liver and Kidney ailment. Thus, a total hospitalization is for about 18 days on three occasions. It is very strange that the appellant is seeking condonation of delay of about 6 months (171 days) on the ground of his fathers hospitalization; where the hospitalization has been for about 18 days. The appellant has not been able to establish any sufficient cause for this delay of 171 days. He has also not been able to explain that how this fathers hospitalization prevented him from filing this appeal. This delay of 171 days (about six months) shows negligence and carelessness on the part of the appellant.
4. We find there is no defensiable reason for the delay of 171 days. Consequently, we do not find sufficient cause and justifiable explanation and reason to condone the delay of 171 days; the appeal is therefore dismissed for not filing in time as per the requirement of the provisions of Section 35B (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
(Pronounced in open court)
(ASHOK KUMAR ARYA) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
/vc/
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