9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in filing memorandum of Cross Objections in Appeal No. C/80/2007 by the Revenue. Analysis: 1. The company, an EOU, sought condonation of a delay of over two years in filing the memorandum of Cross Objections. The delay was attributed to the notice of appeal not being brought to the attention of the executives dealing with customs matters. The company argued that they had a good case on merits, citing previous decisions in their favor. 2. The company relied on various case laws emphasizing that applications for condonation of delay should be liberally dealt with in a justice-oriented manner. The company also cited a previous decision where a delay of 214 days was condoned for similar reasons. The company reiterated the grounds in their application seeking condonation of delay. 3. The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay, stating that the notice of appeal had been served on the company. They argued that condoning the delay would render the limitation prescribed in the Customs Act redundant. 4. The Tribunal considered the case records and submissions. It was noted that the delay was due to the failure of the company to have a reliable system in place to handle appeals promptly. The Tribunal found that the delay was not justified as the company did not take prompt action despite receiving the notice of appeal. 5. The Tribunal examined the facts of the case, where the company had paid differential duty demanded by the department and waived the show cause notice before adjudication. The company's failure to act on the notice of Revenue's appeal was consistent with their stance on the dispute until a contrary view was taken by the Tribunal later. 6. Various case laws were analyzed by the Tribunal, highlighting instances where delays were condoned based on specific factual circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized the need for sufficient cause to condone delays, which the company failed to establish in this case. 7. A previous case cited by the company, where delay was condoned, was found to be distinguishable as the circumstances were different. In that case, the delay was due to the mischievous suppression of the impugned order by a manager, which was not the situation in the present case. 8. The Tribunal concluded that the company's claim of failure by the appointed agency to bring the notice of appeal to the executives' attention was not substantiated. The company did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of not receiving the notice in a timely manner. 9. Section 129(A) of the Customs Act allows for the filing of a memorandum of cross objection after the prescribed period if sufficient cause is established. The Tribunal found that the company failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay and rejected the application for condonation of delay, thereby disposing of the Cross Objection filed by the company.
|
