2019 (1) TMI 1445 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of 206 days in filing appeal - applicant submits that delay has occurred due to the fact that father-in-law of the Director of appellant Shri Parag Garg was terminally ill since December 2017 and unfortunately passed away on 12.04.2018 - Held that - The Order which is the subject matter of the Appeal for which the impugned application has been filed was passed on 22.12.2017 and was received by the appellant within less than 15 days i.e. on 31.12.2017. The maximum time available to the applicant to file the Appeal was till 31.03.2018. The documents supporting the terminal illness as impressed upon by the applicant reflects that the person got admitted on 10.04.2018 and expired on 12.04.2018 i.e. the pleaded event occurred post expiry of the period of three months during which the Appeal could have been filed. Admittedly, the person passed away was the father-in-law of the Director of the applicant but there is nothing on record to show his personal involvement that too to the extent of making it impossible for him to pursue his consultant (CA/ Advocate) for collecting the relevant documents and filing the Appeal within the time frame fixed for the same. This particular observation is sufficient to hold that the reason mentioned for condonation of delay is not a sufficient cause for the delay to be condoned - the delay is of more than 200 days which has not been appropriately explained, Application is held to have no merits - COD Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT DELHI involved a prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellant, represented by Mr. Chinmaya Seth, Advocate, sought condonation citing the illness and subsequent demise of the father-in-law of the appellant's Director as the reason for the delay.

2. The respondent, represented by Ms. Tamana Alam, DR, opposed the condonation, highlighting that the delay was substantial, amounting to 206 days, and contended that the reasons provided were insufficient to justify such a lengthy delay.

3. Upon perusing the documents and considering the timeline, it was noted that the order subject to appeal was passed on 22.12.2017, received by the appellant on 31.12.2017, with the deadline for filing the appeal being 31.03.2018. The documents presented regarding the terminal illness and demise of the father-in-law occurred after the appeal filing deadline, indicating a lack of sufficient cause for the delay.

4. Referring to legal precedents, including the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala 1997 (7) SCC 556 and Perumton Bhagwati Devaswom Vs. Bhargavi Amma 2008(3) 557(S.C.), the Tribunal emphasized the strict application of the law of limitation and the requirement for a genuine and reasonable cause for delay, free from negligence or deliberate inaction.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided by the appellant did not meet the standard of sufficient cause, deeming them as indicative of negligence or deliberate inaction. With the delay exceeding 200 days and lacking a satisfactory explanation, the application for condonation was dismissed, leading to the disposal of the appeal as well. The judgment was pronounced on 19.12.2018.