9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1702 - AT - CustomsCondonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal was not accompanied by any application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal - HELD THAT - It has been stated in the application that since the last date for filing the appeal before the Tribunal was 25 April, 2018, the appeal was filed with a delay of 211 days. It is true that this Tribunal in Panasonic Energy India Company Limited 2017 (9) TMI 63 - CESTAT NEW DELHI held that an appeal cannot be filed before the Tribunal against a negative determination by the Designated Authority, but in such a situation when the view of the Tribunal was very clear, nothing prevented the Appellant from filing a Writ Petition before the High Court to challenge the determination by the Designated Authority, if it felt aggrieved. However, the Appellant neither availed the remedy of filing a Writ Petition in the High Court nor did it file an appeal before this Tribunal within the stipulated time. According to the Appellant, it waited for a decision to be given by the Delhi High Court in a Writ Petition filed by Jindal Polyfilm Ltd. 2018 (9) TMI 1294 - DELHI HIGH COURT to challenge the negative determination by the Designated Authority - There was no reason for the Appellant to await the decision of a Writ Petition filed by some other party and that too not against the determination made by the Designated Authority on 25 January, 2018. If the Appellant was really aggrieved by the negative determination by the Designated Authority, it could have also filed a Writ petition before appropriate High Court. The explanation offered by the Appellant for condoning the delay is not satisfying - application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal challenging the Final Findings of the Designated Authority. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Appellant challenging the Final Findings of the Designated Authority, dated 25 January, 2018, on 22 November, 2018. The appeal was filed after a delay of 211 days without any application for condoning the delay. The Appellant cited various reasons for the delay, including the belief that no appeal was maintainable against negative recommendations by the Designated Authority, based on the decision in M/s Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs Union of India. The Appellant also waited for the judgment of the Delhi High Court in a Writ Petition filed by Jindal Polyfilm Ltd., which held that a statutory appeal under Section 9C of the Act is maintainable against negative recommendations. The Appellant further mentioned the decision of the Bombay High Court granting three weeks' time to file an appeal, which led to the filing of the present appeal on 22 November, 2018. The learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the delay should be condoned based on the circumstances surrounding the confusion regarding the maintainability of the appeal against negative recommendations. However, the learned Counsel for the Respondents objected, stating that the delay was not bona fide as the Appellant waited for the decision of other parties and only filed the appeal after the Bombay High Court granted permission to another party to file an appeal. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and noted that the Appellant did not avail the remedy of filing a Writ Petition in the High Court or an appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. The Tribunal emphasized that the Appellant should have taken proactive steps to challenge the negative determination by the Designated Authority instead of waiting for decisions in unrelated cases. The Tribunal found the reasons provided by the Appellant insufficient to condone the delay and rejected the application for condonation of delay, consequently dismissing the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely filing appeals and the need for parties to take proactive steps to address grievances instead of relying on decisions in unrelated cases. The Tribunal's decision underscores the significance of diligence and prompt action in legal proceedings to ensure the timely and effective pursuit of justice.
|
