9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the legality of orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal due to delay in filing an appeal. Analysis: The petitioner questioned the legality of orders passed by the Tribunal due to a delay in filing an appeal after being aggrieved by an order from the Commissioner of Customs. The appeal was filed 145 days late, prompting the petitioner to submit an application to condone the delay, citing reasons for the delay in approaching the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal solely based on the mention in the original order that any challenge must be made within 90 days. However, the Tribunal failed to provide any other reason for the rejection. The Tribunal possesses the discretion to condone delays if sufficient cause is demonstrated by the applicant for being aggrieved by the original order. It is the Tribunal's responsibility to assess whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause, and only if the cause is deemed unsatisfactory can the application and appeal be rejected. Merely stating a 90-day limit in the original order does not automatically imply that sufficient cause is lacking for a delayed appeal. In this case, the petitioner adequately demonstrated sufficient cause for the delayed approach to the Tribunal. The High Court opined that the delay should have been condoned by the Tribunal, allowing for a decision on the appeal's merits. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Tribunal's impugned order, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and directed the Tribunal to restore the appeal on its Board for a decision on merits. Therefore, the High Court's judgment favored the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of considering sufficient cause for delays in approaching the Tribunal and ensuring appeals are decided on their merits rather than technicalities.
|
