9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Appellant's health condition, Counter affidavit by Commissioner of Customs, Functioning of the company with another Director in charge. Delay in filing appeal: The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay of 127 days in filing the appeal. The appellant's Director cited health issues as the reason for the delay, mentioning nervous problems, joint pains, vomiting sensation, and indigestion. However, the Commissioner of Customs contended that another Director of the company was fully aware of the case facts and could have filed the appeal within the stipulated time. The Commissioner relied on previous judgments where delays were not accepted due to health reasons, emphasizing that the appellant could have used an agent to file the appeal. The Bench noted that the appellant's health issues did not prevent him from signing the papers, and the factory was operational under the supervision of the other Director. Consequently, the explanation for the delay was deemed insufficient, leading to the rejection of the application for condonation and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal. Condonation of delay: The appellant sought condonation of the 127-day delay in filing the appeal due to the Director's health problems. The appellant's affidavit detailed the health issues faced, including mental agitation and physical ailments, which supposedly hindered the appellant's ability to concentrate on official work. However, the Commissioner of Customs countered this explanation by highlighting that another Director was actively managing the company's operations and could have filed the appeal in time. The Bench, after considering the arguments presented, concluded that the appellant's health condition did not justify the delay, especially when the company was functioning under the supervision of another Director. As a result, the application for condonation was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Appellant's health condition: The appellant's Director cited health issues, including nervous pain and physical discomfort, as the reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The Director claimed to have experienced an improvement in health by August, enabling him to initiate the appeal process. However, the Commissioner of Customs contested this explanation by pointing out that another Director was actively involved in managing the company's affairs during the period in question. The Bench observed that the appellant's health condition did not prevent him from signing the necessary documents or overseeing the company's operations. Consequently, the Director's health issues were considered insufficient justification for the delay in filing the appeal, leading to the rejection of the condonation application and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal. Counter affidavit by Commissioner of Customs: The Commissioner of Customs filed a counter affidavit challenging the appellant's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The Commissioner highlighted that another Director of the company was fully aware of the case details and could have filed the appeal within the prescribed timeframe. The Commissioner relied on previous judgments where delays due to health reasons were not accepted, emphasizing that alternative arrangements could have been made to ensure timely filing. The Bench considered the Commissioner's counter affidavit, which indicated that the company was operational under the supervision of another Director, rendering the appellant's health-related delay justification inadequate. Consequently, the application for condonation was rejected based on the counter affidavit's content, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Functioning of the company with another Director in charge: The issue of the company's operational status with another Director in charge was crucial in determining the validity of the appellant's health-related delay in filing the appeal. The appellant's Director cited health problems as the reason for the delay, but the Commissioner of Customs pointed out that another Director was actively managing the company during that period. The Bench noted that the company was functioning under the supervision of the other Director, indicating that the appellant's health issues did not significantly impact the company's operations or its ability to file the appeal in time. As a result, the presence of another Director overseeing the company's affairs undermined the justification for the delay based on the appellant's health condition. Consequently, the application for condonation was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. ---
|
