2017 (5) TMI 1070 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - It is the case of the Revenue that the appellants did not follow the case with due diligence and as such the application of condonation is devoid of merit - Held that - While we are aware that there is a delay of more than 375 days in filing the appeal, we note that substantial responsibility for such long delay rest with the counsels representing the appellant - the substantial appellate remedy available to the appellant should not be jeopardized due to the actions of the appellant s counsel which admittedly resulted in long delay - the substantial appellate remedy available to the appellant should not be jeopardized due to the actions of the appellant s counsel which admittedly resulted in long delay - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay application, responsibility of counsels, communication gap, inordinate delay, liberal approach in case of short delay, strict proof required for inordinate delay, responsibility of appellant's counsel, admission of appeal, cost imposition, compliance deadline.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a Miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order issued by the Commissioner of (Import) ICD Tughalakabad, New Delhi. The appellant received the order on 26.10.2015, filed the appeal on 23.02.2016, and faced delays in rectifying defects pointed out by the Registry. The delay in filing the appeal amounted to approximately 375 days. The appellant's counsel admitted to the lack of diligence in following up on the appeal, resulting in the delay. The Revenue opposed the application for condonation, citing lack of proper explanation for the delay and referencing a decision by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana high court regarding the proof required for inordinate delays.

The Tribunal acknowledged the substantial responsibility of the appellant's counsels for the prolonged delay in processing the appeal. Despite the delay, the Tribunal considered admitting the appeal to render a decision on merit. The Tribunal noted the communication sent by the registry for defect removal was belatedly acted upon in February 2017, and the demand draft submitted with the appeal had expired, necessitating revalidation. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's counsel's dislocation due to the departure of an earlier arguing counsel contributed to the delay. The judgment emphasized that the appellant's substantial appellate remedy should not be jeopardized due to the actions of the counsel. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous application, admitting the appeal on the condition that the appellant pays a cost of &8377; 5000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within four weeks, with evidence of payment to be submitted to the Registry. The compliance deadline was set for 25.05.2017.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of timely and diligent legal representation, while balancing the need to ensure access to justice for the appellant. The Tribunal's decision to admit the appeal with a cost imposition aims to address the delay while upholding the appellant's right to a legal remedy.