Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Limited Vs Commissioner Of Customs Export (CESTAT Mumbai)
On perusal of the date chart/list of events, as above, we find that as a sick company, the applicant was pursuing the matter before the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (special Provisions) Act, 1985. Further, on examination of the case records, we find that there is no negligence on the part of the appellant in not filing of appeal within stipulated time frame provided under the statute. In so far as the issue of condonation of delay is concerned, the Tribunal is not only required to look at the period of delay but is also required to examine the qualitatively, as to whether the reasons set out for seeking the condonation of delay are genuine and bona fide. We find that in the similar set of facts, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Pentafour Products Ltd. Vs. CCE — 2013 (290) ELT A154 (Mad) has allowed the COD application considering the fact that the appellant company therein was a sick company and operating under the management of the Court Receiver.
In the case of Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy – 2008 (228) ELT 162 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. It has also been held that sometimes, delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation; whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory.
On going through the case records, we are convinced that the delay occurred in filing the appeal is genuine and satisfactory explanation was furnished by the applicant in support of condonation of the same. Therefore, the present miscellaneous application filed by the applicant is considered and accordingly, the delay caused in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT MUMBAI ORDER
Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. Applicant has filed this miscellaneous application, seeking condonation of delay of 2644 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order dated 30.04.2013 passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs (Exp.), Mumbai-I. The applicant has filed a date chart explaining the reasons of delay in filing the said appeal, which are reproduced below:-
