9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Claim for drawback of Rs. 6,50,238/-; Rejection of drawback claims by appellate authority; Condonation of delay in filing appeals; Power of High Court to condone delay in appeals; Justification for condoning delay. Analysis: The petitioner, a firm exporting finished leathers, filed 15 drawback claims which were rejected by the appellate authority. More than 200 appeals were filed collectively by various firms regarding drawback for export of finished leather. The appellate authority remanded some appeals for fresh consideration and confirmed others. The petitioner, under the impression that its appeals were included in the collective filing, did not file separate appeals initially. However, upon realizing the omission, the petitioner filed appeals with a request for condonation of delay. The appeals were rejected due to delay exceeding 30 days. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking condonation of delay and fresh consideration of its drawback claims. The Court considered the petitioner's reasons for the delay, noting that similarly placed exporters were allowed drawback claims despite delays. The Court relied on precedent to assert its power to condone delays in appeals. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay, allowing the writ petition and directing the authority to consider the appeals on their merits. The High Court, in considering the power to condone delays in appeals, referred to a previous judgment highlighting that limitations applicable to appellate authorities do not bind the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court examined the circumstances leading to the delay in filing appeals by the petitioner, emphasizing the petitioner's genuine belief that its appeals were part of the collective filing. Noting that other exporters in similar situations were granted drawback claims, the Court found the petitioner's reasons for delay convincing. In the interest of justice, the Court exercised its discretion to condone the delay, emphasizing that the petitioner should not be deprived of legitimate claims due to procedural delays. As a result, the Court directed the authority to entertain and decide on the appeals concerning the petitioner's drawback claims, without imposing any costs.
|
