Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 1291 - AT - CustomsSeeking condontation of delay of 75 days in filing the appeal - even though the claim has been made that initially the Consultant did not file the appeal, which resulted into delay, however, the same has not been substantiated by producing sufficient evidence from the second Consultant - HELD THAT - Even though the applicant has attempted to make a case that it is the negligence of the first Consultant resulting into delay, however, the said plea has not been supported by any evidence by way of providing the name of the second Consultant nor the dates when it was initially given to the first Consultant and also when the draft copy of the appeal was given by the second Consultant for filing the appeal. Since the grounds explaining the inordinate delay is vague, hence, it does not warrant condonation. The miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.
Issues Involved: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, negligence of consultant, evidence requirement for condonation.
Analysis: 1. Delay in filing appeal: The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of a 75-day delay in filing the appeal before the forum. The delay was attributed to the negligence of a consultant who failed to file the appeal promptly. The appellant changed consultants, resulting in the delay. 2. Condonation of delay: The appellant's application for condonation of delay was contested by the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue. The AR argued that the cause for delay was vague and lacked supporting evidence. Despite the appellant's claim of negligence by the first consultant, the lack of substantial evidence from the second consultant regarding the timeline and actions taken led to a refusal to condone the delay. 3. Negligence of consultant: The appellant argued that the delay was primarily due to the negligence of the first consultant who failed to file the appeal in a timely manner. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as the name of the second consultant or specific dates of handing over the papers and filing the appeal, to substantiate this claim. 4. Evidence requirement for condonation: The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of providing concrete evidence to support claims of delay caused by negligence. In this case, the vague grounds presented by the appellant were deemed insufficient to warrant condonation of the delay. The lack of specific details and evidence regarding the actions taken by the consultants led to the dismissal of the condonation application and, consequently, the dismissal of the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay, as the grounds provided were considered vague and unsupported by sufficient evidence. Consequently, the appeal itself was also dismissed due to the failure to meet the requirements for condonation of delay.
|