ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. There are two applications before me, both filed by the appellants. One of these applications prays for condonation of the delay of 107 days involved in the filing of the appeal of the delay of 107 days involved in the filing of the appeal and the other seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty amount involved in the case.
2. Heard both sides. On the delay condonation application, Ld. Counsel for the applicants reiterates the contents of the affidavit filed in support of this application. The affidavit is by one Shri G. Venkataraman, Commercial Manager of the applicant-Company, whereas the Memorandum of Appeal has been verified by the Managing Director of the company. The Commercial Manager has explained the delay of the appeal in para 2 of his affidavit as under:
“2. The present application for condonation of delay is being filed under the following circumstances:
“……….By Order-in-Appeal No. 225/2003-Try (D) (ADK), dated 29.8.2003, the First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal. That order copy was received by the Petitioners on 29.8.2003 through their Deputy Manager Finance & Excise, Mr. D. Dillirajan. That person was responsible for all excise related matters including filing of appeals before the appellate forums. Mr. Dillirajan inadvertently due to his pre-occupation with other finance related work of the Petitioners at that point of time, omitted to take the required steps to have an effective appeal filed before this Hon’ble Tribunal. It was only when a notice was received from the Office of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range I Central Excise T Division, “B” wing on 29.1.2004 that Mr. D. Dillirajan realised that he had omitted to take the necessary steps that filing and appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Immediately thereafter, the matter was taken up with Mr. R. Venkataraman, F.C.A., Director in the Petitioner Company. As he is a Chartered Accountant also, it is the practice of the Petitioners to consult legal issues with him before proceeding further. The Director in turn took up the matter with consultants in Chennai in order to secure an opinion as to whether the Petitioners could take further legal remedies against the Order-in-Appeal dated 29.8.2003. After receiving advise that a further appeal can be filed the Petitioners took up the matter with their Advocates in Chennai for filing the present appeal. Consequently there has been a delay of 107 days for the filing of the present appeal.”
3. The pith and substance of the explanation is that one Shri Dillirajan, Deputy Manager (Finance & Excise) of the company was responsible for all excise-related matters including filing of appeals and that, after receiving the impugned order on 29.8.2003, he omitted to take the required steps to have an appeal filed before this Tribunal. The reason for this omission has also been stated in the affidavit, which is that Shri Dillirajan was pre-occupied with other finance-related works of the company. It is self-evident that the omission to file the appeal in time was not ‘inadvertent’ as claimed in the application and the same was due to Shri Dillirajan’s pre-occupation with other finance-related matters of the company. The applicants have no case that the “other finance-related matters” were more urgent and could not have given way to filing of the appeal. It is also pertinent to note that, despite his direct involvement in the matter, Shri Dillirajan has not cared to account for his own omissions, nor has he chosen to swear to any affidavit in support of the present application. The laches and negligence of the applicant-Company are writ large on the face of the record. The delay of the appeal, therefore, cannot be condoned. The application is rejected. Consequently, the remaining application gets dismissed alongwith the appeal.