2022 (1) TMI 365 - HC - Customs

Principles of natural justice - condonation of delay of 75 days in filing appeal - appeal decided in absence of counsel for the appellant - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned order would reflect that in the absence of the appellant or his counsel, the impugned order came to be passed. The reason for the delay as contended by the appellant is that his earlier counsel failed to prefer an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and therefore the appellant handed over the papers to the second counsel for preferring the appeal. The learned Member of the Tribunal found the reasons for delay to be vague and not sufficiently explained. It is not disputed that the impugned order of rejection of application for condonation of delay came to be passed on merit behind the back of the appellant or his counsel. The impugned order does not mention about any opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant Such order rejecting the application on merit behind the back of the appellant could not have been passed by the learned Member. At the most the matter could have been posted for dismissal in default. It appears that the learned Member has not followed the basic principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order. One opportunity needs to be given to the appellant to argue his case on merits - the application for condonation of delay is allowed - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai. Substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's decision in absence of counsel for the appellant and the condonation of a delay of 75 days in preferring the appeal.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals) and applied for condonation of a 75-day delay in preferring the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay citing vague grounds and lack of evidence regarding the delay's cause. The appellant's main grievance was the passing of the impugned order without hearing them.

The appellant contended that the delay was due to the negligence of their first consultant, leading them to hand over the case to a second consultant for filing the appeal. The Tribunal's decision was criticized for being passed without hearing the appellant or their counsel. The Court noted that natural justice principles were not followed, as the appellant was not given an opportunity to present their case.

The Court found merit in the appellant's argument and allowed the application for condonation of delay. The delay was condoned, and the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a decision on the appeal's merits. The Court emphasized the importance of granting the appellant an opportunity to argue their case.

Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and no costs were imposed. The judgment highlighted the significance of adhering to natural justice principles and ensuring that parties have a fair chance to present their case before a decision is made. The Court's decision aimed to provide the appellant with the opportunity to argue the appeal on its merits before the Tribunal.