KIRMANI FABRICATORS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal tinder Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter to be referred to as, "the Act"), the appellant has challenged the order dated 10th March 2014 made by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") whereby, the application made by the applicant seeking condonation of the delay caused in preferring the appeal has been turned down, and the stay application as well as the appeal have also been dismissed.

(2.) Mr. D.K. Trivedi, learned advocate for the appellant invited attention to the application for condonation of the delay made by the appellant before the Tribunal to submit that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay of 221 days in preferring the appeal. It was submitted that the appellant had entered into a contract with M/s Indian Rayon, Veraval for carrying out the work of replacing old and worn out motor pumps, compressive pump etc. with new ones and building and replacing platform for installing machinery in the factory, replacing old and torn pipes fitted in the plant by cutting and welding works, replacing parts of machinery installed at one place to another as per the requirement of the plant. Thus, essentially the appellant is engaged in doing labour work and was not aware of the intricacies of law. It was submitted that the concerned Chartered Accountant did not give proper guidance to the appellant as a consequence whereof the appellant could not file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and there was a delay of 221 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant being a layman and a semi-literate person relied upon the consultant for proper guidance, and was, therefore, not justified in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal. It was, accordingly, urged that the appeal does give rise to a substantial question of law and deserves to be allowed.

(3.) Opposing the appeal, Mr. H.C. Buch, learned standing counsel for the respondent, submitting that the Tribunal, while rejecting the application for condonation of delay has duly considered the explanation advanced by the appellant and has not found the same to be satisfactory. Thus, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal is in any manner improper or unjust so as to warrant interference. The appeal being devoid of merit, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.