9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal with application for condonation of delay. 2. Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Challenge to the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Petitioner's right of appeal and pursuit of statutory remedy. 5. Granting opportunity of effective hearing on merits. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a case where the petitioners were directed by the Court to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, with an application for condonation of delay. The petitioners filed the appeal within the stipulated period but failed to submit the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, leading to the challenge of this order. The Executive Vice President of the petitioner Company acknowledged the lapse and sought to quash the order of dismissal to have the appeal heard on merits. The respondent authorities agreed that if the petitioner files an application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority would consider it and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. The Court emphasized the petitioner's right of appeal as a statutory remedy and noted the petitioner's consistent pursuit of legal recourse. Denying the appeal solely on technical grounds would result in injustice, necessitating an effective hearing on the merits of the dispute. As a result, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application for condonation of delay by a specified date. Upon filing, the Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to first deal with the application, condone the delay, and then proceed with hearing the appeal on its merits. The impugned order of dismissal was quashed, restoring the appeal to the file and allowing the petition. The petitioner was ordered to bear the costs payable to the respondent revenue.
|
