9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 698 - HC - CustomsCondonation of delay - delay in filing appeal before Tribunal - the case of the appellant is that the delay was caused, on account of the counsel, who was handed over the brief, failing to keep track of the period of limitation for lodging the appeal, before the Tribunal - Held that - no doubt that the appeal which had been preferred, with the Tribunal, was filed, beyond the limitation of three months, stipulated in Section 129 A (3) of the Act - under sub-section (5) of Section 129 A of the Act, the Tribunal, has been vested with the power to condone the delay, if, sufficient cause is shown. The appellant, in the given circumstances, cannot be put to prejudice, because of the lack of professionalism of the Advocate engaged by it. Delay condoned - order of Tribunal set aside - application for COD allowed in favor of applicant.
Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal under the Customs Act, 1962. Detailed Analysis: The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) rejecting an appeal against an order by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I). The appellant was served with a show cause notice proposing to deny an exemption notification and levy differential duty, interest, and penalty. The order-in-original confirming the demand was passed on 14.01.2016. The appellant deposited a portion of the duty demanded on 23.02.2016 and appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the order on 29.04.2016. The appellant received the order-in-appeal on 22.06.2016 and claimed to have received it on 26.06.2016. An additional amount was deposited on 16.12.2016, and an appeal was lodged with the Tribunal on 19.12.2016, beyond the stipulated three-month period for filing the appeal (Para 2-5). The appellant sought condonation of delay, attributing the delay to the negligence of the counsel who failed to file the appeal in time. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, citing the appellant's responsibility to file the appeal within the limitation period and deeming the delay inexcusable. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the advocate's negligence. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had the power to condone the delay if sufficient cause was shown, without an outer limit specified in the Act (Para 6-9). The High Court observed that the delay in filing the appeal was over three months but found the reasons provided by the appellant for seeking condonation of delay reasonable. The appellant had handed over the necessary papers to the advocate in September 2016, assuming timely action would be taken. Considering the circumstances, the Court held that the appellant should not be prejudiced by the advocate's lack of professionalism. The Court concluded that the delay was not so significant as to be beyond condonation and set aside the Tribunal's order, directing the appellant to pay costs of Rs. 7,500 within two weeks (Para 10-12). In the final disposition, the High Court directed the Tribunal to take up the appeal for hearing on merits, with the appellant bearing the costs. The appeal was disposed of with these directions, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed (Para 13).
|
