Case Law Details
CESTAT, BANGALORE BENCH
Evergreen Drums & Cans (P.) Ltd.
versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur
FINAL ORDER NOS. 680 TO 682 OF 2012
MISC. ORDER NOS. 747 TO 749 OF 2012
APPLICATION NOS. E/COD/374, 381 & 382 OF 2012
APPEAL NOS. E/3057, 3080 & 3081 OF 2011
OCTOBER 12, 2012
ORDER
1. These applications filed by the appellant seek condonation of the delay of 69 days involved in the filing of the appeals. There is no representation for the appellant/applicant despite notice, nor any request for adjournment seen on record. I have perused the records and have found that the impugned order was received by the appellant on 13/06/2011 and the appeals were filed on 29/11/2011 with the above delay. The reason stated for this delay is that the consultant who had appeared on behalf of the party before Commissioner (Appeals) at Guntur handed over the orders and connected papers to “the concerned persons of the applicant dealing with the matter” and “the said concerned person dealing with the matter” kept the papers with him and “totally forgot to bring it to the notice of the applicant”. The appellant states that the matter came to their notice “very late” and that they collected all the papers and handed over the same to their consultant for preparation of the appeals to be filed before this Tribunal. It is further stated that, in the meantime, the consultant “met with an accident with fracture in his hand which was covered by plaster” and therefore he handed over the drafts of the appeals to the applicant late. It is claimed that, in these circumstances, the appeals could not be filed within the stipulated time.
2. The learned Superintendent(AR) opposes the present applications. According to him, the above explanation of the party is not satisfactory.
3. I have given careful consideration to the averments contained in the COD applications as also to the submissions of the learned Superintendent(AR). The gist of the above averments is that “the concerned person dealing with the matter” in the appellant’s office received the orders and kept the same with him and forgot to hand it over to the appellant. The identity of “the concerned person dealing with the matter” is not forthcoming. The appellant is a corporate entity and hence “the concerned person dealing with the matter” must be an employee of the company. The knowledge of “the concerned person” regarding the impugned orders is the knowledge of the company itself and, therefore, the plea that the appellant- company did not notice the existence of the appellate Commissioner’s orders for a long time even after its employee received those orders is unacceptable. This apart, the averment that the consultant who was entrusted with the work of filing of the appeals met with an accident and suffered fracture in his hand etc. is not supported by any evidence. In the result, there is no cogent explanation of the delay of 69 days involved in the filing of the appeals. The COD applications get dismissed and consequently the appeals are also dismissed as time-barred.
