1995 (7) TMI 84 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal on the ground of delay and lack of sufficient cause for condonation.

Analysis:
The petitioners imported goods which were later confiscated by the Collector under relevant customs laws. The petitioners sought to challenge this confiscation through an appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs. However, the appeal was filed with significant delay, leading to rejection by the Board on the grounds of being time-barred and lack of sufficient cause for condonation. Subsequently, a Revision Application was filed to the Government of India, which was also time-barred and transferred to the CEGAT due to jurisdictional changes.

The CEGAT concluded that the petitioners had consistently delayed the matter at each stage, filed appeals without proper authorization, and failed to pay appropriate court fees. As a result, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal. The petitioners, aggrieved by this decision, filed a Writ Petition challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal.

During the proceedings, the petitioners argued that the delay in filing appeals was due to seeking clarification from the Competent Authority. They also contested the jurisdiction of the Collector's order based on subsequent clarifications regarding the banned status of the goods. However, the Court found no merit in these contentions, stating that the appeals were filed carelessly without proper authorization or court fees, and the delays could not be condoned.

The Court emphasized that the approach of the petitioners in filing the appeals was negligent and lacked diligence. They dismissed the argument that appeals were not filed due to seeking clarification, stating that there was no reason to delay filing pending clarification. Additionally, the Court clarified that a previous judgment cited by the petitioners was not applicable to the current case due to the procedural irregularities in filing the appeals.

Ultimately, the Court held that the Writ Petition failed, discharging the rule with no order as to costs. The decision was based on the petitioners' failure to adhere to proper procedures in filing appeals and the lack of valid reasons for the delays encountered throughout the process.