2002 (3) TMI 751 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals by the Revenue.
2. Adequacy of reasons provided for the delay.
3. Procedural compliance in filing condonation applications.
4. Precedents and legal principles regarding condonation of delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals by the Revenue:
In both revenue appeals, the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, sought condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The delay was 189 days in the case of Hyundai Motors Ltd. and 86 days in the case of MICO Industries Ltd. The primary reasons cited for the delay included the time taken to trace original documents and administrative procedures.

2. Adequacy of reasons provided for the delay:
The applications cited that "considerable time has been spent to trace out the original documents" and "preparation of appeal which is purely administrative in nature." However, the Tribunal found these reasons insufficient. The Tribunal noted that the delay was not adequately explained, as the time-charts showed significant periods where files were lying idle in various sections without any action.

3. Procedural compliance in filing condonation applications:
The Tribunal observed that the applications were not supported by affidavits from the Commissioner of Customs. Instead, they were filed by subordinate officers without proper authorization to file condonation applications. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper procedural compliance, including affidavits explaining the delay and a time-chart detailing the reasons for the delay.

4. Precedents and legal principles regarding condonation of delay:
The Tribunal referred to several precedents, including the Apex Court's judgment in UOI v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd., which emphasized that the government must provide a sufficient cause for delay. The Tribunal also cited cases where delays were condoned due to specific reasons like sickness or administrative difficulties, but noted that in the present cases, no such specific and sufficient reasons were provided.

The Tribunal concluded that the reasons given for the delay were not satisfactory and demonstrated negligence. The applications for condonation of delay were rejected due to lack of sufficient cause and procedural compliance. Consequently, the appeals and stay applications were also rejected.