2013 (6) TMI 183 - HC - Customs

Delay in filing an appeal - condonation of delay - held that - the conduct of the appellant in the Tribunal as well as in firstly filing the writ petition against the order of the Tribunal and thereafter by filing appeal with delay of 213 days is not sufficient to explain the delay. Initially on seizure of the goods the petitioner had filed a writ petition in Gujarat High Court and obtained an order for release of the goods on 23.12.2005 imposing condition of bank guarantee. The department filed Special Leave Petition No.2705 of 2006 in the Supreme Court. The Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla by order dated 12.1.2006 had communicated the order of the provisional assessment. The petitioner withdrew the petition before the Gujarat High Court on 30.1.2006. The Commissioner of Customs has also recorded finding that the caustic soda imported by the petitioner was never used for manufacture of soap and that customers to whom the soap was alleged to be sold, were all found to be fictitious. The appellant has unsuccessfully tried to justify the facts of manufacture and sale of soap by submitting copy of the sales tax return on comparison the figures of sales as reflected on the sales tax return. - no sufficient cause - delay condonation application rejected. - decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Custom appeal beyond the statutory time limit under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of fines and penalties under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Application for waiving pre-deposit for appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
4. Delay condonation application for filing the appeal before the High Court.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with a custom appeal that was filed beyond the statutory time limit of 230 days under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant sought condonation of delay of 12 months and 27 days for filing the appeal. The court scrutinized the grounds for delay, noting contradictions and negligence on the part of the appellant in handling the legal proceedings related to the appeal. The court found the explanations provided by the appellant insufficient to justify the delay and ultimately rejected the delay condonation application, leading to the dismissal of the customs appeal.

2. The Adjudicating Officer had confiscated goods and imposed fines and penalties under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment detailed the confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fines, demand of duty, and penalties on the appellant and other related parties. The Commissioner confirmed the demands and penalties under the Customs Act, emphasizing the non-compliance and negligent conduct of the appellant throughout the proceedings. The court observed discrepancies in the appellant's justifications regarding the manufacture and sale of goods, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the customs appeal.

3. The appellant had approached the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for waiving the pre-deposit requirement to hear the appeal. The Tribunal initially directed the appellant to deposit a certain amount, which was later reduced considering the financial difficulties of the appellant. However, the appellant failed to comply with the deposit requirements within the specified time frame, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal. The appellant's subsequent actions, including filing a writ petition and delay in filing the appeal before the High Court, were also considered by the court in the overall assessment of the case.

4. The judgment also addressed the delay condonation application filed by the appellant for submitting the appeal before the High Court. The appellant provided various reasons for the delay, including the health condition of the counsel and difficulties in obtaining necessary documents. However, the court found the explanations inadequate and highlighted the appellant's negligent behavior and attempts to avoid liability throughout the legal proceedings. Consequently, the delay condonation application was rejected, and the customs appeal was dismissed by the High Court.