2018 (7) TMI 2037 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeals were filed beyond the condonable period as prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - The writ petition has been pending before this Court since 2012 and the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents touches upon the merits of the matter as well as reiterates the stand taken in the impugned order. It is no doubt true that the appeals have been filed belatedly. However the delay is less than two days. This Court is of the view that the petitioner s right to file the appeals which is a statutory right should not be defeated on such a technical ground though this Court ruled in several cases that the period of limitation prescribed under the Statute should not be extended by this Court. However considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the delay is less than two days this Court is inclined to exercise its discretion and condone the delay. The delay in filing the appeals is condoned - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on the ground of delayed filing of appeals under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras, through Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, heard a writ petition challenging an order issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 26-8-2011. The order was not based on the merits of the case but on the fact that the appeals were filed beyond the condonable period specified under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The writ petition had been pending since 2012, with the respondents' counter-affidavit addressing both the merits of the case and reiterating the stance taken in the impugned order. Despite the appeals being belatedly filed, the delay was less than two days. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner's right to file appeals, being a statutory right, should not be denied on a technicality. While the Court had previously ruled against extending the limitation period prescribed by statute, it exercised discretion in this case due to the unique circumstances and the minimal delay. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The first respondent was directed to accept the appeal petitions, provide notice to the petitioner, grant a personal hearing to the petitioner's authorized representative, and adjudicate the appeals on their merits and in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded in this matter.