2018 (2) TMI 659 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - Held that - there no deliberate delay or lapse on the part of the appellant in pursuing their appeal before this Tribunal. We further notice that this matter relates to licence of the appellant and there is no implication of revenue in this appeal - application for condonation of delay allowed. Rejection of the representation which was made with respect to the order dated 26th November 2015 passed by the Commissioner deregistering them under the Courier Import and Exports (Clearance) Regulation, 1998 - Held that - As the main appeal against the order of deregistration being appeal No. C/87576/16 has been admitted for hearing by this Tribunal, the appellant does not want to press this appeal and the same is disposed of as withdrawn - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, representation before Chief Commissioner, implications on appellant's license, early hearing grant, withdrawal of appeal.

In the present case, the appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay in filing their appeal due to the deregistration of their registration under the Courier Import and Exports (Clearance) Regulation, 1998. The appellant's registration was deregistered and revoked by the Commissioner, leading to a representation before the Chief Commissioner, which was dismissed on 14th September 2016. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the deregistration order dated 26th November 2015. The appellant argued that the time taken in pursuing the remedy before the Chief Commissioner, about 253 days, should be excluded from the calculation of the limitation period, resulting in a net delay of about 24 days. The appellant contended that there was no deliberate delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the importance of condoning the delay in the interest of justice.

The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, opposed the condonation application. However, upon considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal, comprising Mr. Anil Choudhary and Mr. C.J. Mathew, found that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the appellant in pursuing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the matter directly impacted the appellant's license and did not have revenue implications. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the application for condonation of delay and admitted the appeal for hearing on its merits. Additionally, taking into account the appellant's assertion regarding the involvement of their livelihood, the Tribunal granted an early hearing scheduled for 31.1.2018.

In another aspect of the judgment, the appellant had also filed an appeal against the Chief Commissioner's order dated 14.9.2016, related to the deregistration order of 26th November 2015. As the main appeal against the deregistration order had been admitted for hearing by the Tribunal, the appellant decided not to press this additional appeal. Consequently, the second appeal was disposed of as withdrawn, and the miscellaneous application was also disposed of accordingly. The Tribunal pronounced its decision in open court, ensuring clarity and finality in the disposition of the matters at hand.