9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1053 - HC - CustomsCondonation of delay of 1096 days in filing the Customs Appeal - HELD THAT - We may recall, the Department had initially approached the Supreme Court by filing Appeal under bona fide belief that such Appeal against the Judgment of CESTAT was competent before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, expressed a different view, dismissing the Appeal of the Department. While doing so, liberty was kept open for the Department to file Appeal before the High Court. It is true that even after this order was passed by the Supreme Court, the Department has taken considerable time in filing Appeal before the High Court. The delay is condoned on the condition of payment of costs of ₹ 20,000/- to the Respondent which shall be paid by the Department latest by 31/05/2019. Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly.
Issues:
Delay in filing Customs Appeal before High Court after Supreme Court's order. Analysis: The Customs Department filed a Notice of Motion seeking condonation of a 1096-day delay in filing a Customs Appeal before the High Court. Initially, the Department had filed an Appeal before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed with liberty to approach the High Court. The Department explained the delay citing the period lost during the pendency of the Supreme Court Appeal, claiming it should be excluded in computing the limitation period under the Limitation Act. The Department admitted to oversight in failing to file the Appeal before the High Court promptly after the Supreme Court's order. The delay was discovered only after a letter from the Deputy Commissioner, prompting the Department to trace the case file and realize the need to file the Appeal before the High Court. The Respondent strongly opposed the Notice of Motion, arguing that the Department was aware of the Supreme Court's order as its Counsel was present during the order's passing and the Respondent had also informed the Department. The Respondent contended that there was no valid explanation for the delay and highlighted the Department's repeated lethargy in filing Appeals. The Respondent relied on legal precedents to argue that unexplained delays, even caused by a government body, should not be condoned. After hearing both parties and reviewing the documents, the Court noted that the Department initially approached the Supreme Court in good faith but took considerable time to file the Appeal before the High Court after the Supreme Court's order. The Department claimed it did not receive the Supreme Court's order, a fact not disputed by the Respondent. The Court acknowledged the reasons cited by the Department to explain the delay and briefly reviewed the main Appeal's controversy, foreseeing a potential recurring effect. Considering the totality of circumstances, the Court decided to condone the delay on the condition that the Department pays costs of ?20,000 to the Respondent by a specified date. In conclusion, the Notice of Motion seeking condonation of delay in filing the Customs Appeal before the High Court was disposed of with the Court's decision to condone the delay upon payment of costs by the Department to the Respondent.
|
