1985 (4) TMI 290 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT NEW DELHI under Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The Department challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, beyond the three-month limitation period, seeking condonation of delay. The reasons cited included the need for a detailed study to verify the classification of the imported item, crucial for customs practices and government revenue.

2. The Departmental Representative justified the delay by outlining the procedural timeline from receiving the Order-in-Appeal to seeking technical advice, emphasizing the necessity of expert opinion post a Tribunal's previous decision. The delay was attributed to awaiting technical advice from the Chief Chemist.

3. The respondent contested the Department's arguments, citing legal precedents that the law of limitation applies equally to the Government and private individuals. The respondent argued against liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need for prompt action by Government officials in legal matters.

4. The Tribunal deliberated on the principles governing condonation of delay, acknowledging the need for a practical view of governmental processes while upholding the law of limitation. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the balance between public interest and timely legal actions by government authorities.

5. After considering the explanations provided by both parties, the Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the appeal was justified due to the necessity of seeking a second opinion from the Deputy Chief Chemist following a prior Tribunal decision on a similar matter. The Tribunal found the explanation sufficient and therefore condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

In summary, the Tribunal granted condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT NEW DELHI, taking into account the necessity of seeking expert opinion in light of previous decisions and the impact on customs practices and government revenue. The Tribunal balanced the principles of timely legal actions with the practicalities of governmental processes, ultimately deciding in favor of the Department's application for condonation of delay.