2016 (9) TMI 176 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay - Imposition of penalty - Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 MTS of heavy melting scrap short landing of goods Held that - The Act does not confer power on the Appellate Authority to condone the delay beyond the period of thirty days. Though this has been the rule, there have been certain exceptions where this Court has exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The Order-in-Original which was passed on 10.11.2004, is yet to be given effect to and it has not attained finality, in spite of lapse of nearly one decade. This Writ Petition has been pending before this Court from the year 2005 and eleven long years has lapsed and nothing has happened. Therefore, this is a good and sufficient reason for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction delay condoned appeal allowed decided in favor of ppellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order imposing penalty under Customs Act, 1962 for failure to account for short-landing of heavy melting scrap. Appeal rejection as time-barred due to delay in filing beyond 30 days. Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by the Court to condone the delay and direct consideration of appeal on merits.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order imposing a penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 for failure to account for short-landing of heavy melting scrap. The appeal against this order was rejected as time-barred, filed one day beyond the 30-day limitation period. The first respondent cited the despatch date of the original order and the date of appeal filing as reasons for rejecting the appeal. The Court noted that the Act does not empower the Appellate Authority to condone delays beyond thirty days. However, the Court acknowledged exceptions where extraordinary jurisdiction was exercised based on peculiar circumstances. The Court found this case to be appropriate for such intervention due to the prolonged pendency of the matter since 2005 without finality being achieved on the original order.

The Court emphasized that its decision should not be considered a precedent due to the unique circumstances of the case. The Court allowed the Writ Petition, with no costs imposed, and directed the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The first respondent was instructed to review the appeal on its merits and in compliance with the law, providing the petitioner with a personal hearing opportunity. The Court's decision aimed to address the exceptional circumstances of the case and ensure a fair consideration of the appeal despite the delay in filing.

In conclusion, the Court's judgment focused on the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the statutory limit of thirty days. The decision highlighted the importance of considering unique case circumstances and ensuring fairness in the legal process. The Court's direction to review the appeal on its merits after the delay condonation aimed to uphold the principles of justice and provide the petitioner with an opportunity for a fair hearing.