2014 (9) TMI 524 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay of 413 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal - appellant had categorically stated in his petition about his illness - The Tribunal rejected the petition stating that it is a case of sheer negligence and inaction on the part of the applicant and there is no reason for condonation of delay of filing the appeal. - Held that - Admittedly, Law of limitation is founded on public policy, not meant to destroy the rights of parties, but to ensure that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics. There was no material produced by the respondent Department stating that the reasons assigned by the appellant was false or the Appellant adopted dilatory tactics or with mala fide intention filed the appeal belatedly. The appellant would contend that the Authorised Signatory was suffering from mental imbalance and considerable amount was spent for treatment and delay of 413 days occurred in preferring the appeal and the other appeal against the order of Adjudicating Authority was also pending before the Tribunal, which explanation could be accepted as sufficient cause for having been prevented to file the appeal within the period of limitation and it cannot be stated that the Appellant was totally lethargic or utterly negligent. Delay condoned - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against dismissal of application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. Opportunity for Natural Justice: The appellant raised the issue of whether the lower court was right in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity as per the principles of natural justice and equity enshrined under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to natural justice principles in judicial proceedings.

2. Dismissal based on Illness: Another issue raised was whether the lower court was correct in dismissing the appeal, especially when the appellant had cited illness as a reason for the delay. The appellant contended that the illness of the authorized signatory led to the delay in filing the appeal, which should be considered as a valid reason for condonation of delay.

3. Legal Proposition on Limitation: The appellant argued that the lower authority erred in dismissing the petition based on the legal proposition regarding the limitation for courts to exercise their powers under Article 226. The Court highlighted the need for a judicious and reasonable exercise of discretion when deciding on delay-related matters, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations.

4. Reasons for Delay: The appellant, a licensed Customs House Agent, faced delay in filing an appeal due to the mental imbalance of the authorized signatory and financial difficulties. Despite the delay of 413 days, the Court found the reasons provided by the appellant to be valid and accepted them as sufficient cause for the delay.

5. Condonation of Delay: The Court acknowledged that the law of limitation is based on public policy and aims to prevent dilatory tactics. In this case, the Court found no evidence of mala fide intentions or deliberate delay on the part of the appellant. Consequently, the Court decided to condone the delay of 413 days and directed the Tribunal to entertain the appeal and proceed in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, condoned the delay, and directed the Tribunal to consider the appeal filed by the appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of balancing substantial justice with technical considerations and highlighted the need for a reasonable exercise of discretion in matters of delay in legal proceedings.