2014 (2) TMI 1200 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - Held that - Same was not endorsed to the present appellant it is only the addendum dated 26-6-2008 is endorsed to the present appellant. In these circumstances, we find merit in the contention of the applicant that the impugned order was received by the applicants only in the month of June, 2008 along with the addendum. Thereafter appellant approached the Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the High Court returned the petition to the appellant vide letter dated 28-2-2013 to present the same before the appropriate court along with order passed by the Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Thereafter appellant filed present appeal on 18-3-2013. - As per the provisions of Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act 1962, Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay on showing sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the normal period of limitation. In the present case as much time is consumed in the proceedings before the Hon ble High Court by way of filing writ petition. In these circumstances, we condone the delay in filing the appeal. - Matter remanded back - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Violation of principles of natural justice, Remand to adjudicating authority

Delay in filing appeal:
The applicant filed an application to condone a delay of 1736 days in filing the appeal, citing that the impugned order imposing a penalty was not received promptly. The applicant argued that the delay caused by the proceedings before the High Court should not be considered as delay on their part. The Tribunal examined the timeline of events, noting that the impugned order was received by the applicant only in June 2008 along with an addendum. The High Court returned the petition to the appellant in 2013, following which the present appeal was filed. The Tribunal, invoking Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act 1962, acknowledged the delay caused by the High Court proceedings and allowed the application for condonation of delay.

Violation of principles of natural justice:
It was highlighted that other appellants had filed appeals against the same impugned order, and the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority in 2012 due to a violation of the principles of natural justice. In light of this previous decision, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order against the present appellant, waived the pre-deposit of penalty, and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal was disposed of through remand based on the Tribunal's earlier order in a similar case.

This judgment delves into the complexities of delay in filing appeals, the application of legal provisions for condonation of delay, considerations regarding the violation of natural justice principles, and the Tribunal's authority to remand matters for fresh adjudication. The detailed analysis provided by the Tribunal showcases a thorough examination of the facts and legal aspects involved in the case, leading to a decision that balances procedural requirements and fairness in adjudication.