2019 (6) TMI 579 - HC - Customs

Condonation of 582 days delay in filing an appeal - Suspension of CHA License - HELD THAT - The applications for condonation of delay have to be considered in the light of the material placed by the applicant explaining the delay in filing an appeal. Each case would be decided on the facts put forth by the applicant before the Court to explain the delay. Merely because a long delay has been condoned in one case would not by itself lead to the conclusion that long delays have been condoned in earlier cases and, therefore, notwithstanding the absence of appropriate explanation for the delay, the same has to be condoned. In the present case, there is complete negligence on the part of the Officers of the Department to challenge the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 11th January, 2017. Thus, there is no sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. Notice of Motion is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal from an order of the Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Justification for the delay in filing the appeal.
3. Legal precedents cited in support of condonation of delay.
4. Negligence of the Revenue in challenging the order of the Tribunal.
5. Comparison of facts in the present case with previous judgments on delay condonation.

Analysis:
1. The application sought condonation of a 582-day delay in filing an appeal from the Tribunal's order suspending a Custom Broker License. The delay was explained by the Deputy Commissioner's actions seeking directions, leading to the appeal being filed on 18th February, 2019.
2. The applicant's counsel cited legal precedents like Nagpur Business Forms Pvt. Ltd. and others to support the condonation of delay, emphasizing the decision in Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs. Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. as favorable to the applicant.
3. The Court noted that the Tribunal's order only set aside the license suspension, leaving the cancellation issue for the Revenue to pursue separately. The delay explanation lacked clarity on the approval date for filing the appeal, indicating Revenue negligence in timely challenging the order.
4. The Court highlighted that each delay condonation application must be assessed based on the provided explanation. Merely citing previous cases where long delays were condoned does not justify condoning delays without proper justification. The reliance on the Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. decision was deemed insufficient to excuse the lengthy delay.
5. A comparison was drawn with a previous case where a 1096-day delay was condoned due to specific circumstances, contrasting it with the present case's lack of a similar justification. The Court concluded that the Revenue's negligence in challenging the Tribunal's order did not present sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, leading to the dismissal of the Notice of Motion.