ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. There are two applications before us, one seeking condonation of the delay of 57 days involved in the appeal and the other praying for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty and penalty amounts involved in the case. We take up the first application.
2. The impugned order was received by the party on 23.01.2004 and the appeal was filed on 18.06.2004 with a delay of 57 days. The appeal should have been filed on or before 23.04.2004. One reason stated for the delay, in this application, is that the applicants were ‘constantly away from Coimbatore’ for attending cases in Special Court. We are at a loss to understand as to how the entire company, M/s Talent Alloys Pvt. Ltd., was away from Coimbatore for the stated purpose. Another reason stated is that the case papers had been handed over to one Mr. P.M. Thomas, said to be Consultant, for taking necessary action, but Shri Thomas could not take any action due to his sickness. Allegedly, it was with ‘great difficulty and delay’ that the papers were retrieved from Shri Thomas. Ld. Counsel has reiterated these reasons.
3. Ld. SDR submits that there is no proof of any of the facts pleaded in the application and that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. She relies on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. 1988 (38) E.L.T 739 (S.C) and the Tribunal’s decision in Tracon India v. Commissioner of Customs Kandla 2004 (175) E.L.T. 320 Tri.-Mumbai.
4. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. As rightly pointed out by Id. SDR, there is no evidence of Shri P.M. Thomas having been authorized by the company to file appeal against the impugned order, nor is there any material to show that Shri Thomas was unable to file appeal for medical reasons. In the case of Tracon India (supra), the explanation of delay of appeal without medical certificate was rejected. In the case of Tata Yodogawa (supra) the apex court was considering a similar application filed by the Department seeking condonation of delay of their SLP. The court refused to condone the delay of 51 days, after noting that there was no cogent explanation for the delay from 26.12.1986 to 10.2.1987 and from 6.3.1987 to 24.3.1987. The case considered by the apex court was one arising under the Central Excise and Salt Act. It appears from the judgment of the apex court that, in cases arising under the Central Excise Act or under the Customs Act, any delay of appeal should be explained date-wise. In the present case, no such explanation is forthcoming, nor is there any evidence in support of the facts pleaded by the party.
5. For the reasons noted above, we dismiss the application. Consequently, the appeal along with the stay application gets dismissed as time barred.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)