1984 (4) TMI 284 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals
2. Applicability of Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 to Nepal Cargo
3. Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 to Customs Appeals

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals
The appellant, M/s. Heilgers Ltd., filed six appeals on January 30, 1984, against orders passed by the Collector (Appeals). The appeals were filed beyond the three-month limitation period prescribed under Section 129-A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant sought condonation of delay under Section 129-A(5) of the Customs Act, arguing that they were prevented by sufficient cause from filing within the stipulated period. The grounds for condonation included the appellant's engagement in writ petitions in the High Court of Calcutta, where similar legal questions were pending. The High Court had advised the appellant to file appeals before the Tribunal within three weeks from January 11, 1984. The Tribunal held that the appellant's actions were bona fide and condoned the delay, emphasizing that this decision should not set a precedent.

2. Applicability of Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 to Nepal Cargo
The appellant argued that Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with penalties for short-landing of cargo, should not apply to cargo destined for Nepal. They cited a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Birendra Bahadur Pandey v. Gramophone Company Limited, which held that the Customs Act was not applicable to Nepal cargo due to the Indo-Nepal Treaty. The appellant also contended that Section 116, which pertains to dutiable cargo, should not apply to goods not chargeable to duty if landed. The Tribunal acknowledged these arguments but did not provide a final ruling on this issue within the judgment.

3. Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 to Customs Appeals
The appellant's counsel argued that the limitation period for filing appeals should be governed by the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically citing a three-year period under Article 100. They also referred to Section 14 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allow for the exclusion of time spent in proceedings bona fide in a court without jurisdiction and for the extension of the prescribed period in certain cases. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal is governed by the Customs Act, 1962, and not the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the Tribunal condoned the delay based on the appellant's bona fide efforts and the High Court's advice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, recognizing the appellant's bona fide efforts and the High Court's guidance. The judgment emphasized that this decision should not set a precedent for other cases. The Tribunal also clarified that the Customs Act, 1962, governs the limitation period for filing appeals, not the Limitation Act, 1963.