9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal and application for condonation of delay. Analysis: The case involved an appeal filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, against an order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in favor of the respondents, allowing the benefit of Notification No. 114/73-C.E. to the respondents for refund of additional duty paid on imported goods. The appeal was received by the Tribunal beyond the limitation period, leading to the filing of an Application for Condonation of Delay. The reason cited for the delay was the time taken for consulting technical experts and obtaining their opinion. The respondents contested the application for condonation of delay. Upon hearing both sides and examining the record, the Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed well beyond the limitation period, with the delay being unjustified. The Tribunal referred to the principle that the expression 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay cannot be construed liberally, whether the defaulting party is the Government or a private individual. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in West Bengal v. Howrah Municipality, the Tribunal emphasized that the law of limitation applies equally to the Government and private individuals. While acknowledging the need for thorough inquiry by Government officials, the Tribunal highlighted that courts cannot tolerate delays caused by Government officials in legal proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal, leading to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay. As a result, the main appeal was dismissed as time-barred under Section 129A of the Customs Act. The decision was based on the failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, highlighting the importance of complying with statutory timelines in legal proceedings.
|
