2017 (10) TMI 712 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of 1010 days in filing appeal - case of appellant is that after receipt of the impugned order the same was misplaced in their office in Kanpur and though efforts were made to file the appeals, it did not fructify and thus there was omission in filing appeals within time - Held that - In many judgements, the Hon ble Apex Court as well as various High Courts, has held that in every case of delay there may be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That this alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him - the appellant has to be given a chance to contest his appeal - delay condoned subject to appellant paying costs as mentioned - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of Delay in filing appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an application seeking Condonation of Delay (COD) of 1010 days in filing the appeal after the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and communicated to the appellants within 2 weeks. The appellant claimed that the delay was due to the misplaced order in their office and subsequent failed efforts to file the appeal. The appellant also filed a writ petition before the High Court, which got dismissed, giving liberty to file an appeal before the Tribunal with an application for COD. The appellant argued that the delay was not intentional and cited a Supreme Court judgment to support leniency in such cases.

2. The respondent strongly opposed the application for COD, stating that the appellant received the copy of the impugned order within time but failed to file the appeal within the prescribed limit. The respondent highlighted that even after realizing the lapse, the appellant further delayed the process by approaching the High Court through a writ petition. The respondent contended that there were insufficient grounds for COD and requested the dismissal of the application.

3. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and noted that the appellant failed to file the appeal within the statutory time limit despite receiving the impugned order. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the High Court's observation to file an appeal before the Tribunal with an application for COD. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, the Tribunal emphasized that every delay may not warrant dismissal and that the appellant should be given a chance to contest the appeal. To balance the delay, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pay specified costs in different appeals within a month to meet the ends of justice. Non-compliance would result in the dismissal of the COD application. The Tribunal set a compliance reporting date for the appellant.