2014 (5) TMI 599 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - revenue while justifying the delay in filing the appeal, submits that these two appeals have to be considered as supplementary appeals. - Held that - it is painful in hearing the matters of condonation of delay without being properly justified. We are of the view that the decisions relied upon by the Departmental Representative does not carry their case any further for the simple reason that in all those cases revenue had filed the composite appeal before the Tribunal and CESTAT registry had directed to file appeals against other respondents. In the case in hand the revenue has filed only one appeal against the respondent. Office of the Commissioner of Customs has sought the condonation of delay by only stating that through oversight only one appeal had been filed. It is seen that no other justification is mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, filed by the revenue - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before the bench, condonation of delay, sufficiency of cause for delay justification, interpretation of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, principles governing condonation of delay in appeals filed by the Government.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD. The revenue sought to condone a delay of approximately six years in filing appeals against two respondents following an Order-in-Original issued by the Commissioner of Customs. The revenue justified the delay by arguing that the appeals should be considered as supplementary appeals due to administrative reasons and cited relevant legal precedents to support their position. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the revenue failed to provide sufficient cause for condoning the delay, referencing various legal judgments emphasizing the importance of justifying delays in filing appeals. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both sides and examined the records, noting the significant delay of six years in filing the appeals.

The Tribunal scrutinized the application for condonation of delay filed by the revenue and found it lacking in proper justification for the delay. The revenue's application merely cited oversight as the reason for filing only one appeal instead of separate appeals against all respondents. The Tribunal expressed disappointment in the revenue's failure to adequately justify the delay, emphasizing the importance of providing valid reasons for seeking condonation of delay. The Tribunal differentiated this case from previous decisions where composite appeals were filed, highlighting that in this instance, only one appeal had been submitted against a single respondent.

In its analysis, the Tribunal referenced legal precedents, including the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd., to underscore the requirement of showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Tribunal clarified that while Rule 6A of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 allows the Commissioner to file one appeal as the aggrieved party, this provision applies when a composite appeal is filed. Since the revenue had only filed one appeal against a single respondent, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to condone the delay in filing separate appeals against the other respondents. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the revenue had not presented a convincing case for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the applications for condonation of delay and the subsequent dismissal of the appeals.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of providing valid and sufficient reasons for seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals. It clarifies the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents governing the condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for a robust justification when seeking such relief. The Tribunal's decision in this case was guided by established legal principles and the specific circumstances of the matter at hand, leading to the dismissal of the appeals due to the lack of a compelling case for condonation of delay.