9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 248 - HC - CustomsCondonation of delay of 82 days in filing Appeal - Held that - the order in original is dated 08.03.2016 which was received by hand delivery by the Advocate of the petitioner on 22.06.2016. The Appeal was required to be filed on 22.09.2016, whereas the same is inwarded on 13.12.2016. It has come on record that the petitioner was arrested on 22.06.2016 and was enlarged on bail on 24.08.2016. The Court finds that such an explanation was very much on the record of CESTAT in the form of Affidavits - delay condoned - petition allowed.
Issues:
Delay condonation in filing statutory appeal before CESTAT. Analysis: The petitioner, engaged in the export business of diamonds, faced a showcause notice due to alleged overvaluation of exported diamonds. The adjudicating authority confirmed the proposal, leading to penalties and fines. The petitioner's appeal against this order was delayed by 82 days, citing criminal prosecution of one of the directors as the reason. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the delay. The petitioner argued that the delay was properly explained, supported by affidavits detailing the director's arrest and subsequent release. The respondent opposed, stating the arrest date was before the statutory deadline. The Court noted the arrest, bail dates, and explanation were on record, finding the criminal prosecution a valid reason for delay. The Court held that the delay should have been condoned, allowing the petitioner to appeal on merits. Consequently, the CESTAT's order dismissing the appeal was set aside, and the appeal was restored for a decision on merits. This judgment primarily revolves around the issue of delay condonation in filing a statutory appeal before the CESTAT. The petitioner's explanation for the delay, based on criminal prosecution of a director, was contested by the respondent. The Court, after considering the submissions and documents, found the petitioner's explanation valid and the delay justifiable. As a result, the Court set aside the CESTAT's order dismissing the appeal and restored it for a decision on merits.
|
