Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Rajlaxmi Petrochem Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 20 February, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. I
Application No. E/COD/1116/11 ad E/S/1374/11 and Appeal No. E/1206/11
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AGS (85)56/2010 dated 13.5.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad.)
For approval and signature
Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President
Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Rajlaxmi Petrochem Pvt Ltd
Applicant
(Represented by: Mr. D.R. Gadekar, Consultant)
Vs
Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad
Respondent
(Represented by: Mr. A.K Prabhakar, Superintendent (A.R)) CORAM:
Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 20.02.2012 Date of Decision: 20.02.2012 ORDER NO..
Per: S.S. Kang
1. Heard both sides.
2. Applicant filed this application for condonation of delay of 13 months and 25 days in filing the appeal. The only reason submitted by the applicant is that the concerned clerk kept the impugned order in the file and did not bring to the notice of the Management for further action. Hence there is a delay. It is also the contention of the applicant that during the period in dispute, the factory was closed.
3. Revenue submitted that there is no dispute regarding receipt of the impugned order by the applicant. Therefore, as the applicant had not taken steps to file the appeal within the normal period, therefore, there is no merit in the application.
4. We find that as per the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the normal period of limitation on showing sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. In the present case, the only contention of the applicant is that the concerned clerk kept the impugned order in the file and did not bring before the Management for further action. Negligence of the employee cannot be considered as sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the normal period of limitation. The applicant had not brought on record any evidence showing that the applicant had taken any action against the employee. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the application for condonation of delay and is dismissed. Consequently, the stay petition and the appeal are also dismissed.
(Dictated in Court.) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President rk 3