ORDER
Shri S.L.Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is an applicant is seeking condonation of 248 days from the date of the order. The appellant is a limited company. The reason given by the appellant company is that the company is managed by its Managing Director Shri V. Sashikumar. He floated this small scale industry along with his Aunt. It is stated that his Aunt is a member of the joint family. She was struck with heart disease and hence needed very delicate and tender care and personal attention, due to which the Managing Director could not attend to his business, and as such, there was a delay, due to his mental worry, depression and anxiety. However, in the affidavit, he clearly admits that the factory was running, marketing was being done and office work was being carried out although it was an one-man show.
2. Ld. Counsel vehemently seeks for condonation by stating citing the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the Vs. MST Katiji & Others [1987) 2 SCC 107 – P.108] and that of Sagayagam Engineering Works Vs. M/s. Srivastva Tube Corporation [AIR 1989 (Mad) 237-239 Pps 238 & 239]. Counsel submits that the appellant will not gain anything by delaying in filing the appeal. He contends that he was also approaching the Commissioner for clarification in the matter. He has already paid the Redemption fine and penalty and he has got a very good case on merit and if the delay is not condoned, then the right of appeal will be lost and appellants will be put to severe hardship.
3. Shri S. Arumugam, Ld. DR opposes the prayer on the grounds that the appellant is a private limited incorporated company. There are other officers of the company who should have taken care of the matter. The appellant in his affidavit has not explained as to why none of the other officers have taken care to file the appeal. Merely because the aunt was having heart ailment, that could not have prevented the appellants from carrying on their day to day activity. The negligence being patent on record, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
4. On a careful consideration, we are unable to agree with the Ld. Counsel and the affidavit filed is not satisfactory and it has not convincingly explained the long delay of 248 days. The Managing Director’s Aunt’s heart ailment could not come in the way of appellants from carrying out their other business activities. He was also approaching the Commissioner in the matter. Nothing prevented the appellants from filing the appeal as he did not require much time or energy. The appellant has also not given any other convincing, satisfactory and sufficient reason to condone the delay. The citation referred to by the counsel with regard to Collector Vs. MST Katiji & Ors. deals with only one day’s delay and in which the Apex Court observed that appellants will not gain by committing the delay of one day. But in the subsequent judgments, the Apex Court has not condoned the delay where there was enormous days delay as in the case of CCE Vs. Tata Yodogava [1998 (38) ELT 739. There are similar orders passed by Tribunal also and one such is CC Vs. Carborrundum Universal Ltd. [1990 (47) ELT 61-L.B.], and Oswal Vanaspati Industries & Ors. Vs. CCE [1990 (50) ELT 610-LB]. On (sic) the Revenue appeals have all been dismissed by the Apex Court where satisfactory reason was not given. In the present case, the appellant is an incorporated company and the affairs of the company are being carried out by many persons other than the Managing Director. There is no explanation from other persons who are carrying out the day-to-day activity of the factory to why as they have not filed the appeal in time. The reason given not being sufficient and in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Tata Yudogova and other Tribunal judgments cited supra, there is no merit in this application and hence the COD application is rejected. As a consequence, the appeal also is dismissed.
(Pronounced & dictated in open Court)