2012 (7) TMI 786 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - the signatory was not in charge of day-to-day activities - He was living in Coimbatore which is 450 kms. from the factory. - held that - No one has preemptory right to get the delay condoned on one plea or the other. We are conscious that there cannot be presumption of deliberate delay on account of culpable negligence or malafide. But when the appellant as a Managing Director did not visualize that he may run in risk when SCN resulted in adjudication of demand and penal consequences, he became a silent spectator. Present application is abuse of process of law for no reasonable cause advanced. Condonation of delay of unexplained nature shall be premium to the lapse. There is no sufficient cause to condone the delay of 603 days made in the present case to seek appeal remedy. Just because the Tribunal is vested with the discretion to condone the delay, exercise of such discretion is not meant to grant premium to the default of delay when neither cogent nor believable reason exist.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was filed with a delay of 603 days, leading to the appellant moving an application for condonation of delay. The appellant, as the Managing Director of the company, claimed that he was not aware of the procedure for filing an appeal due to being misled by another individual. The appellant's counsel requested the Tribunal to consider the application and condone the delay, while the Revenue opposed the condonation of delay.

The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the right to appeal within the prescribed time limit, emphasizing that the law of limitation is crucial to prevent prolonged litigation. The Tribunal noted that the remedy in this case was barred by limitation due to the significant delay. Despite the appellant's explanation regarding his lack of awareness and negligence, the Tribunal found the reasons insufficient and not credible. The Tribunal emphasized that negligence is not an excuse and that a vigilant approach is necessary. Refusing to condone the delay, the Tribunal stated that the application for condonation of delay was an abuse of the legal process without any reasonable cause.

The Tribunal further explained that the discretion to condone delay is not intended to reward defaulters when there is no cogent or believable reason provided. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that the cause of delay is crucial, and in this case, the appellant's casual approach and lack of reasonable cause led to the rejection of the condonation application. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the stay petition and the appeal due to the unexcused delay of 603 days. The decision was pronounced in open court on 30.1.2012.