2020 (10) TMI 345 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of about 211 to 228 days in filing appeal - sufficient cause shown for the delay - HELD THAT - The delay is apparently attributable to the incident of theft which occurred in the first week of February, 2019 wherein the Supervisor Shri Mahipal was also involved, and he was the key person who has received the orders on behalf of the appellant company. Further, due to this incident there was disturbance in the normal functioning of the office of the appellant and from 02.02.2019 Shri Mahipal suddenly left the job without any notice period and without informing any responsible person regarding the receipt of impugned orders and appeals to be filed. Further, it is evident from the record that appellant has not slept over the case. After hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals), they have been making enquiries from time to time regarding status of their appeals, particularly vide letters dated 15.11.2018 and 20.05.2019. Further, it is evident from the record that the appellant traced the impugned orders on 21.07.2019. There is reasonable cause for the delay in preferring these appeals which have been properly explained - COD application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
In a batch of appeals, there was a delay of 211 to 228 days from the date of the impugned order in appeal. The appellant, a manufacturer of Aluminium and Non-Alloys Ingots, imports aluminium scrap as the main raw material. The Customs Officer routinely loaded the transaction value arbitrarily, leading the appellant to deposit duty and tax to avoid demurrage. The appellant filed 92 appeals against Bills of Entry assessed under Section 17(5) before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Orders in appeal were despatched between 29.11.2018 to 20.12.2018, received by a supervisor at the appellant's office who left suddenly without informing anyone about the orders. The appellant found the orders in an old almirah on 21.01.2019 and filed the appeals after locating them. The appellant had also made inquiries about the status of their appeals in November 2018 and May 2019. The delay was attributed to a theft incident in February 2019 involving the supervisor, causing a disturbance in the appellant's business operations.

The Authorised Representative (AR) for the respondent opposed the condonation of delay, alleging deliberate delay on the appellant's part. The AR cited a case where a delay application was dismissed due to insufficient cause for delay. However, the Tribunal found the delay in the present case was due to the theft incident involving the supervisor, which disrupted the normal functioning of the appellant's office. The appellant had actively inquired about the status of their appeals and eventually located the orders in July 2019. The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay, supported by affidavits and correspondence. Condonation of delay was allowed subject to a lump sum cost of ?1 lakh to be paid to the Prime Minister Cares Fund within two months from the date of the order.

The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 01.10.2020, allowing the condonation of delay applications and admitting the appeals for hearing.