9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Maintainability of the writ petition. 3. Merits of the Tribunal's order refusing to condone the delay. Summary: Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal In this petition u/s 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order dated 9th November 2000, which refused to condone the delay in filing an appeal u/s 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner, a trading unit, imported video cassettes and faced discrepancies in the declaration, leading to the seizure of goods u/s 111(d) of the Act. The Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation and imposed a penalty, allowing redemption on payment of a fine. The petitioner filed an appeal with a delay, explaining that the partner in charge was ill, causing a mix-up of papers. The Tribunal found the explanation unconvincing and dismissed the appeal. Issue 2: Maintainability of the Writ Petition The respondent argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as the impugned order can only be challenged before the Supreme Court u/s 130E of the Act. The petitioner countered that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies is not invariable, and the Court can interfere in appropriate cases. The Court noted that an order dismissing an appeal as time-barred is one passed in appellate jurisdiction and that such an order is not covered by Clause (b) of Section 130E, making the writ petition maintainable. Issue 3: Merits of the Tribunal's Order Refusing to Condon the Delay The Court emphasized that a liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with applications for condonation of delay. It highlighted that rules of limitation are meant to ensure parties seek their remedy promptly and not to destroy their rights. The Court found no evidence of deliberate delay, culpable negligence, or lack of bona fides on the petitioner's part. The Tribunal's order lacked reasons and failed to show that the delay was unjustifiable. The Court directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits, setting aside the order refusing to condone the delay. Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed to the extent that the Tribunal's order refusing to condone the delay was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to hear the appeal on merits. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the issues involved.
|
