2014 (3) TMI 319 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - dispatch of an appeal to Tribunal through Courier - Held that - appellant undoubtedly has forwarded the papers to their advocates in Ahmedabad for filing appeal before the Tribunal. On perusal of the leter written by the Advocate to whom the papers were forwarded, we find that the Ld. Advocate has specifically stated that the courier agency engaged by him to dispatch the appeal, to Tribunal had given the consignment slip, but unable to trace the proof of delivery; he has shut down the practice and no papers are available with him. Director of the Company has filed an affidavit, fairly detailed one, in support of the application for condonation of delay. Though there is a considerable delay in filing appeal, the delay can be condoned due to the reasons that the appellant counsel error in not filing appeal in time should not come in the way for rendering justice, but the main appellant needs be saddled with a cost, which we fix as Rs.5000/- - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appellants filed applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal. The counsel for the appellants argued that there was a significant delay in filing the appeals due to the advocate's error. The advocate had apparently misplaced the consignment slip as proof of dispatching the appeal to the Tribunal. The appellants were prompted to act upon a call from Range Officers, which led to the realization of the missing appeal. Despite efforts to locate the appeal, no information was obtained from the advocate or the Tribunal. The advocate later admitted to not following up on the appeal's status. The appellants cited precedents from the High Courts of Kolkatta and Madras to support their request for condonation of delay.

The Departmental Representative contended that the appellants, being from the organized sector, should have been more diligent in monitoring the status of their appeals. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was argued that negligence leading to delay should not be condoned as it could deprive the revenue of collecting confirmed duty liability and penalty. The Tribunal acknowledged the substantial delay in filing the appeal and the agreement by both sides on the Tribunal's power to condone the delay.

Upon reviewing the records, it was confirmed that the appellants had forwarded the appeal papers to their advocate, who failed to provide proof of delivery to the Tribunal. An affidavit from the Company Director detailed the efforts made to trace the appeal after a reminder from the Revenue Office. The Tribunal found no reason to doubt that the advocate had submitted the appeal and stay petition based on the courier's consignment slip. Despite the delay, the Tribunal decided to condone it, attributing the delay to the advocate's error. However, the appellants were directed to pay a cost of Rs.5000 to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II within six weeks as a penalty. The applications for condonation of delay were allowed, and the Registry was instructed to proceed with the stay petitions and appeals upon compliance with the payment requirement.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, emphasizing the advocate's error as the reason for the delay. The appellants were directed to pay a penalty of Rs.5000 within six weeks to proceed with their appeals and stay petitions.