2013 (5) TMI 298 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay and stay of realization - appeal suffers from delay - The cause of delay was unreasonable. While appreciating rule of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Ketan V.Parekh vs. Special Director, Directorate of Enforemment 2011 (11) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , we are satisfied that present application for condonation of delay is devoid of merits but an abuse of process of law. Thus, MA(COD), and stay application as well as appeal are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Justification for delay in filing appeal.
3. Consideration of appellant's health issues.
4. Application for condonation of delay deemed an abuse of process of law.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal with an application for condonation of delay and stay of realization of demand. The matter was first heard on 27.1.2012, and subsequent adjournments were granted. The appellant's appeal had not been admitted, and the Tribunal observed that the appellant would not benefit from any final order issued before the appeal was admitted.

2. The application for condonation of delay indicated that the impugned order was served on the appellant on 24.03.2010. The appellant claimed to have approached his counsel for appeal preparation but failed to provide a specific date. The appellant cited health issues, specifically a spine problem, as the reason for the delay in contacting the advocate. However, the timeline presented in the application showed a lack of prompt action by the appellant in pursuing the appeal.

3. The history of the case outlined in the condonation application revealed that the appellant did not provide documents to the advocate promptly after receiving the appealable order. The appellant's health condition was highlighted as a reason for the delay, but the Tribunal noted that the appellant did not demonstrate a conscious effort to pursue the appeal within the statutory limitation period.

4. Despite acknowledging the potential prejudice to the appellant due to the dismissal of the appeal, the Tribunal found the length of delay unreasonable. Citing a legal precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the application for condonation of delay lacked merit and was an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the condonation application, stay application, and the appeal itself.