LAWS(CE)-2013-7-89

ANITA SCRAP TRADERS Vs. COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Decided On July 15, 2013
Anita Scrap Traders Appellant
V/S
COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION for condonation of a delay of 311 days in preferring the appeal against the order dated 27 -2 -2012 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad, confirming the adjudication order dated 14 -6 -2011 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad whereby the petitioner was assessed the Service Tax liability of Rs. 43,60,729/ - while eschewing imposition of penalty invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act), is sought herein. Reasons pleaded for the delayed filing of the appeal are set out in para 3 of the application and state that the order -in -appeal dated 27 -2 -2012 was received on 4 -3 -2012 by the acting partner Shri Anil Singh who retained the order in his personal control and forgot about it; the memory of Shri Anil Singh was activated when a recovery letter was received from Revenue, to recover the adjudicated liability.

(2.) THOUGH the ld. Counsel for the petitioners seeks to support the application for condonation on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnana v. M. Krishnamurthy - : (1998) 7 SCC 123 : 2008 (228) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.) and a misc. order of this Tribunal in Cosmos Casting India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Raipur reported in : 2013 (197) ECR 101 (Tri -New Delhi) : 2012 (286) E.L.T. 721 (Tri. -Del.), we are not persuaded that these decisions propound a norm that absence of mala fides is the sole criterion for condonation of delay. A Limitation Act as is well -known is a statute of repose; and after the specified period of limitation is over, the other party to a cause of action is entitled to assume absence of a potential litigative trauma. Due diligence in prosecuting the litigation is also a valid criterion that could legitimately be considered in condoning delay in preferring an appeal. The reasons set out in the present application do not commend acceptance for grant of COD. Since no reasonable cause is shown, we find no justification for condoning the delay. The application is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.