2022 (6) TMI 434 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - rejection of appeal on the ground of time bar - sufficient cause for delay given or not - HELD THAT - No doubt the appeal was filed within the period of 90 days that is during such period for which the statute vests discretion in Commissioner (Appeals) for condoning the delay subject to being satisfied of the sufficient cause for the said delay. Reverting to the facts of the present case pertaining to limitation it is observed that the cause/ reason for delay was mentioned as critical mental health problem of the appellant, for which no medical evidence was provided by the appellant to Commissioner (Appeals). Appellant rather mentioned that he had not sought a medical opinion because his mental critical condition was only due to financial pressure because of the impugned Order-in-Original confirming the duty demand with interest penalty. These submissions are highly insufficient to be called as sufficient cause for Condonation of the impugned delay. Law of limitation is founded on the public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicue up sit finis litium which means it is for the general welfare that a period be put to a litigation. No doubt the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties but simultaneously the objective of these rules is to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but should seek their remedy promptly - Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COLLECTOR OF C. EX., MADRAS VERSUS A. MD. BILAL CO. 1999 (2) TMI 70 - SC ORDER declined to condone the delay therein for filing the appeal because there was no satisfactory or reasonable explanations rendered for condonation of delay. It has been held by Hon ble Apex Court that sometimes on certain occasions the Courts have taken a view that delay should be condoned with a liberal attitude, while on certain other occasions, the Court has taken stricter view and wherever the explanation was not satisfactory, the applications seeking condonation of delay have been dismissed. Heavy burden lies on such appellant to explain the delay sufficiently, for each day. The explanation on ground of illness, given by appellant is held to be absolutely vague in the present case as the appellant could not substantiate with any medical record. Hence, possibility of appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) to be an afterthought and a time gaining strategy cannot be ruled out. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in filing appeal
- Condonation of delay

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed to challenge the rejection of the appeal on the ground of being time-barred. The appellant had imported goods declared as "polyester knitted fabric" but was found undervalued and mis-declared upon examination by Customs officers. The appellant agreed to the assessed value and paid the duty but filed an appeal against the order. The Commissioner rejected the appeal due to limitation issues, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was minimal, emphasizing a later date for calculating the limitation period. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support the argument for condonation of delay. On the other hand, the Department contended that there was no sufficient cause provided for the delay and that the appeal was rightly rejected on the grounds of limitation.

3. The Tribunal observed that the Order-in-Original was promptly issued after the appellant's admission of undervaluation and mis-declaration. The appellant's reasons for delay, citing mental health issues due to financial pressure, were deemed insufficient without medical evidence. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the law of limitation in ensuring prompt legal remedies and emphasized the need for a valid "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay.

4. Referring to precedents, the Tribunal stressed the importance of providing a satisfactory explanation for delay and the discretion of the courts to condone delays based on valid reasons. The Tribunal found the appellant's explanation vague and lacking in substantiation, suggesting a possible dilatory tactic. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appeal, concluding that the delay was not adequately justified.

5. In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision to reject the appeal based on limitation grounds. The judgment underscores the significance of valid reasons for seeking condonation of delay and the need to adhere to statutory timelines for legal proceedings.