2023 (8) TMI 1327 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing appeal before commissioner (appeals) - appeal rejected on the ground of time limitation - sufficient reasons for delay or not - HELD THAT - The appellant is a sole proprietorship firm and the Proprietor is aged about 70 years, therefore, we are of the view that the reasons given by the appellant for delay are sufficient to be condoned, more so for the reason that the delay is only of 27 days, which falls within the period of 30 days, as provided in the Proviso to Section 128 (1) of the Customs Act. The judgement of the Apex Court in SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT was followed by this Tribunal in the case of M/S SHAMBHU SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ICD, TUGHLAKABAD (IMPORT) NEW DELHI 2021 (4) TMI 118 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , whereby it was held that Tribunal does not have any power, much less discretionary power, to condone any delay beyond the extended period of 30 days, after the expiry of the normal period of 60 days. The reasons given by the appellant for condonation of delay are adequate and enough to condone the delay of 27days in filing the appeal. The ends of justice would be met, if the appeal filed by the appellant is considered on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence matter remanded to decide the issue on merits - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal challenging rejection on technical grounds of being time-barred.

Summary:
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the rejection based on being time-barred. The issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned. The appellant had challenged an order-in-original where the declared value of goods was re-determined, undeclared cosmetics were assessed to duty, confiscated, and penalties imposed. The appeal was filed beyond the statutory 60-day period. The appellant sought condonation of the 27-day delay due to the associate of the counsel leaving the office, which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) found insufficient without documentary evidence.

The appellant's counsel presented a medical certificate showing the proprietor's health issues. The Tribunal considered previous decisions and noted that the delay fell within the extended 30-day period under the Proviso to Section 128(1) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal distinguished cases where delay exceeded the extended period. Referring to the Apex Court's judgment in Singh Enterprises, the Tribunal emphasized that "sufficient cause" for delay must be adequate or enough, without a strict formula. The Tribunal found the reasons given by the appellant sufficient to condone the 27-day delay and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for consideration on merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue afresh on merits. The appeal was allowed accordingly.