Sri Jayalakshmi Spinning Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 24 & 25/2008 (G) CE dated 29/02/2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, GUNTUR (Appeal) ]

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

Sri Jayalakshmi Spinning Mills Ltd Jayalakshmi Nagar, Chebrols PO GUNTUR. AP Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Guntur P.B.NO. 331, C.R.BUILDING, KANNAVARI THOTA, GUNTUR, - 520004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None C.H. VENKATESWARA RAO 5-21-104,2/18, Brodiept, Guntur - 522002 Andhra Pradesh For the Appellant

Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 15/07/2015

Date of Decision: 15/07/2015

CORAM:

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

Final Order No. 21570 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

Nobody appeared for the appellants. Our attention stands drawn to a letter addressed by the appellant praying for condoning the delay on the grounds as mentioned in the COD application. Accordingly we have gone through the application and have heard the learned DR.

2. As per facts on records, the impugned Order-in-Appeal was passed on 29.2.2008 and the same was admittedly received by the appellant on 14.3.2008. The normal period of limitation expired on or around 14.6.2008 and the appeal stands filed on 28.11.2014 with a delay of 2445 days.

2.1 The appellants have raised the following grounds in their application for condoning the huge delay of 2445 days.

The unit has been closed for the last several years, on account of incurring heavy losses in business. The concerned person dealing with this subject left the company without handing over the relevant papers.

As is seen from the above, the only reason for the appellant for late filing of appeal is that their factory was lying closed for a number of years and the concerned person did not handover the said impugned Order-in-Appeal for the purpose of filing of appeal there against. We find that apart from the above bald statement the appellants have not shown any evidences to reflect upon their bona fide. The fact of the unit being closed cannot be taken as a ground for condoning the huge delay of 2445 days. It is well settled law that the appellants are required to show their bona fide and genuine reasons for not filing the appeal well within the period of limitation. We do not find any sufficient and reasonable grounds for such inordinate delay in filing the appeal. We accordingly reject the COD application. Consequently the appeal is required to be dismissed as barred by limitation. We order accordingly.

(Order pronounced in open court)

ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

rv

3