Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Bharath Traders vs Cce, Salem on 7 January, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
ST/COD/570/2012 & ST/570/2012
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 4/2012-S.Tax (SLM) dated 7.2.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Salem)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Mathew John, 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?
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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Bharath Traders Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Salem Respondent
Appearance Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate, for the Appellants Shri K.S.V.V. Prasad, Jt. Commr. (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member Date of Hearing : 07.01.2013 Date of Decision: 07.01.2013 Misc. Order No. ______________ Final Order No. _______________ Per P.K. Das The applicant filed this application for condonation of delay of filing of appeal with 134 days.
2. The learned counsel submits that they have received the impugned order on 10.2.2012 and filed the appeal on 24.9.2012. Thus there is a delay of 134 days. The learned counsel also drew the attention of the Bench to the affidavit of Shri Balasubramaniam, partner of the applicant-firm. The relevant portion of the said affidavit is reproduced below:-
4. I beg to submit that the subject appeal was entrusted to the counsel for preparation of draft appeal and the papers were handed over. When the matter was followed up by the appellant herein, it was informed that the clerk in the counsels office has misplaced the file and the same could not be traced immediately. The file which was mixed up with other disposed files was traced out subsequently and immediately the appeal papers were made ready for signature by me and for filing before this Honble Tribunal.
3. The learned Joint Commissioner (AR) strongly opposes the application. He submits that the affidavit does not disclose any sufficient reason for condonation of the delay. In this context, he relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal as under:-
(a) Magic Fasteners (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rohtak 2009 (242) ELT 576 (Tri. Del.)
(b) Star Drugs & Research Labs Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai 2005 (191) ELT 568 (Tri. Chennai)
(c) M.C.E. Products Sales Services Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi 2004 (176) ELT (Tri. Del.)
(d) Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai Vs. Reliance Enterprises 2007 (220) ELT 802 (Tri. Mumbai)
4. After hearing both sides, on consideration of the records and on perusal of the affidavit, it is seen that the applicant did not mention the name of the counsel to whom it was handed over for preparation of the appeal. Further, it is not mentioned when the appeal papers were handed over to the learned counsel. In any event, we find that on the identical facts the Tribunal in the case of Magic Fasteners (P) Ltd. (supra) rejected the condonation of delay application. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:-
4.?In the application for condonation of delay, the reasons given for delay of 86 days read thus -
That there is a delay of 86 days in filing the present appeal which is due to the fact that the case file of the present matter was misplaced in the office of the counsel of the appellant due to the mistake on the part of the clerk. That in reconstructing the file and thereafter preparing the file for the purpose of filing the appeal the delay has occurred which is not intentional or deliberate and is bona fide on the part of the appellant.
5. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Magic Fasteners (P) Ltd. (supra), we do not find any sufficient reason for condonation of delay of 134 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, the application is rejected and the appeal is also dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Mathew John) (P.K. Das)
Technical Member Judicial Member
Rex
2