Stackline Systems Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 89&90-2011 dated 14/11/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The period of limitation under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for filing an appeal against an order-in-appeal runs from the date of service of that order, and the appellant bears the burden of furnishing a satisfactory and substantial explanation for any delay beyond that period. Where a party's authorised signatory has resigned but remained in its employ for a substantial period after tendering resignation, and the party failed to take over the relevant files and papers from him during that period, the party's inability to act within the limitation period is not a sufficient cause for condoning delay; such negligence in managing its affairs does not constitute a justifiable explanation. Where no justifiable explanation is offered for a delay of the length in question, the appeal is liable to be rejected as time-barred under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 89&90-2011 dated 14/11/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals-I), HYDERABAD-I ]
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
Stackline Systems Pvt Ltd 4-3-11/a, R.p.road, SECUNDERABAD - 500003 AP Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-I NULL KENDRIYA SHULK BHAVAN, L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri V.A.A RAVIKUMAR, Advocate 1-8-494/17, VIQAR NAGAR, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD-500 003 For the Appellant
Shri Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 21/07/2015
Date of Decision: 21/07/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21687 / 2015
Per : ASHOK KUMAR ARYA
The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay which is for 10 months and 15 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.89 & 90/2011 dt. 14/11/2011. Heard the learned advocate Shri V.V. Ravikumar who appeared on behalf of the applicant.
2. The learned advocate for the appellant mentions that the impugned OIA was served on them on 29/11/2011 and the time limit as per Section 35B(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is three months from 29/11/2011 i.e. till 28/02/2012 for filing the appeal against the said appellate order. He explained that the employee, who received the order had left their organization and they were not aware of the said order and as such no such action was taken in respect of the said order; they came to know of the order when the departmental officers initiated recovery proceedings. Thereafter only they approached the Department and obtained the copy of the impugned order.
3. When the matter was probed, it was further told that one Mr. Patric Staunton, who was the authorized signatory for the Central Excise, had received the impugned order and this employee viz. Mr. Patric Staunton had offered his resignation from the company on 01/09/2011 but the company persuaded him to stay back for sometime and Mr. Patric Staunton continued for two more months and then again on 15/12/2011, he issued one month notice vide his resignation letter which was accepted on 22/12/2011 itself. However the learned advocate explains that Mr.Patric Staunton, authorized signatory left the company without intimation and without handing over the files. In the meanwhile, it was mentioned by the learned advocate that the appellant company closed down the factory.
4. It could not be explained by the learned advocate that when the authorized signatory was with the company after offering his resignation letter firstly on 01/09/2011 and was with the appellant company for another about over 3 months i.e. till 22/12/2011, why the company did not take over the relevant central excise files and papers from the said authorized signatory. This clearly shows that the appellant company has been completely negligent in managing their affairs and they were not bothered about their liability and obligations under the Central Excise laws. The learned advocate has not been able to satisfactorily explain and could not give substantial justification for this long delay of 10 months and 15 days in filing the appeal.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, when there is no justifiable explanation for the long delay of 10 months and 15 days, there is no option but to reject the appeal as time-barred under the provisions of Section 35B(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
(Operative part of this order pronounced in court on conclusion of the hearing)
ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
Raja.
4
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