2018 (8) TMI 1583 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 989 days in filing appeal before Tribunal - duty was paid under protest - Classification of Imported goods. Held that - Sufficiency of cause is certainly a matter to be considered while exercising discretion. At the same time, Courts/Tribunals are bound to consider, as to whether length of delay or reasons assigned, if not accepted, would cause miscarriage of justice. It is deemed fit that the appellant should be given an opportunity, to pursue the appeal before CESTAT, Madras - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported monitors under CTH 85285100 or CTH 85285900.
2. Refusal to condone the delay of 989 days in filing the appeal.
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation despite the appellant's explanation for the delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Monitors:
The appellant imported BENQ LED monitors and classified them under CTH 85285100, which covers monitors used solely or principally with automatic data processing (ADP) machines and exempts them from Basic Customs Duty (BCD). The customs department, however, classified the monitors under CTH 85285900, which pertains to monitors not specifically used for ADP, thus not exempt from BCD. The Assistant Commissioner upheld this classification, leading to the appellant's appeal being rejected.

2. Refusal to Condon the Delay of 989 Days:
The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal, along with an application to condone the delay of 989 days. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay, stating that the appellant failed to explain each day's delay or provide sufficient cause. The appellant argued that the person in charge of imports left without handing over relevant documents and that the consultant did not inform them about the order, leading to the delay. The Tribunal found these reasons insufficient and dismissed the appeal.

3. Tribunal's Error in Dismissing the Appeal:
The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation despite sufficient cause being explained. They argued that the delay was not deliberate and that they had already deposited the duty under protest. The appellant cited a previous case where the court condoned a delay, emphasizing that they had nothing to gain by delaying the appeal. The court noted that the appellant's reasons for the delay, such as changes in personnel and lack of communication from the consultant, were not accepted by the Tribunal.

Court's Decision:
The court considered the principles laid out in previous Supreme Court judgments regarding the condonation of delay. It emphasized that a liberal, justice-oriented approach should be taken, and substantial justice should not be sacrificed for technicalities. The court found that the appellant did not stand to gain by delaying the appeal and that the reasons for the delay were not concocted or fanciful. It also noted that the dispute over the classification of goods had a direct bearing on the appellant's frequent imports.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, set aside the Tribunal's final order, and condoned the delay of 989 days. The appellant was granted an opportunity to pursue the appeal before the CESTAT, Madras. The court emphasized that sufficiency of cause should be considered to prevent miscarriage of justice and that technical considerations should not override substantial justice.