2004 (12) TMI 690 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, grounds for condonation of delay, exercise of discretionary power by Tribunal, challenge before learned Single Judge, appeal before High Court.

Analysis:
The appellant, a company engaged in the production and export of granite slabs, received a notice from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs demanding Customs Duty foregone on capital goods/consumables during import. The appellant's appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was dismissed, leading to an appeal before the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, with a six-month delay. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by time due to insufficient cause for delay.

The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the Tribunal's decision before the learned Single Judge, citing bereavement in the family of the managing director and an application to recall the Commissioner's order. The Single Judge found these reasons insufficient, emphasizing that the company had pursued other applications during the period. The Single Judge upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that its discretionary power was not arbitrary.

The appellant filed a writ appeal before the High Court, arguing that the delay was justified due to the pending application to recall the Commissioner's order. The High Court, after reviewing the facts, agreed with the Single Judge's decision. The High Court found no merit in the appeal, stating that the reasons provided did not amount to sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the bereavement in the family did not prevent timely filing of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the decision of the Tribunal and the Single Judge. The High Court found no grounds to interfere, stating that the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal was appropriate, and the reasons provided by the appellant were not sufficient to justify the delay in filing the appeal.