Prem Heavy Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....is a delay of little less than eleven months. the learned advocate submitted that the impugned order was never received by the applicants as their factory premises are lying closed; that they came to know about the order only when recovery memo was received along with the impugned order; that after the receipt of the said order, the delay in filing the appeal is only 41 days which has occurred on account of sickness of the managing director of the applicants who is the only responsible person left in the factory. the learned advocate finally submitted that the delay is not attributable to any lack of due diligence on the part of the applicants but has been caused on account of unavoidable natural cause and circumstances.4. opposing the prayer, shri h.c. verma, learned dr submitted that the impugned order was duly sent by registered post to the known address of the applicants; that they had not taken care to intimate their new address to the commissioner (appeals) before whom they had filed the appeals; that thus they have been negligent in pursuing their matters and the delay of almost eleven months has not been satisfactorily explained.5. we have considered the submissions of.....

Judgment:

1. These are two applications by M/s. Prem Heavy Engineering Works P.Ltd. for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal.

2. We heard Shri R.K. Rishi, learned Advocate and Shri H.C. Verma, learned DR.3. The impugned Order No. 51/52/04 dated 19.2.2004 was despatched to the applicants on 19.2.2004 itself at their known address. The appeals have been filed by them on 18.1.2005 and as such, there is a delay of little less than eleven months. The learned Advocate submitted that the impugned order was never received by the applicants as their factory premises are lying closed; that they came to know about the order only when recovery memo was received along with the impugned order; that after the receipt of the said order, the delay in filing the appeal is only 41 days which has occurred on account of sickness of the Managing Director of the applicants who is the only responsible person left in the factory. The learned Advocate finally submitted that the delay is not attributable to any lack of due diligence on the part of the applicants but has been caused on account of unavoidable natural cause and circumstances.

4. Opposing the prayer, Shri H.C. Verma, learned DR submitted that the impugned order was duly sent by registered post to the known address of the applicants; that they had not taken care to intimate their new address to the Commissioner (Appeals) before whom they had filed the appeals; that thus they have been negligent in pursuing their matters and the delay of almost eleven months has not been satisfactorily explained.

5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We observe that the appeals were filed by the applicants before the Commissioner (Appeals) against confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalty by the adjudicating authority. Once they have filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and their factory not closed, it was their duty to intimate the address to the Commissioner (Appeals). In fact, the learned Advocate has also appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) for the personal hearing before the appeal was decided. It appears that even at that time, the new address for correspondence purpose was not intimated to the Commissioner (Appeals). Further, the personal hearing was granted on 28.1.2004 and the order was passed on 6.2.2004. The applicants should have been careful as their appeals had been heard and the order was to be passed. We, therefore, find that the applicants have not satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the appeals. We, therefore, dismiss their applications for condonation of delay. Consequently, both the appeals are also dismissed.