9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing reference applications under Section 130 of the Customs Act.
In the judgment delivered by Shri G.P. Agarwal, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi considered two applications for making reference to the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, accompanied by separate applications for condonation of delay exceeding two months in filing the reference applications. The applicants argued that the delay was unintentional and the issue was of public importance. However, the Tribunal noted that it lacked the power to condone delays beyond 30 days as per the Proviso to Section 130 of the Customs Act. The applicants received the order in question on 27-6-1986 but filed the reference applications on 10-11-1986, well beyond the 60-day limit specified in the Act. The Section mandates that the Tribunal can allow the party to present the application within a further period not exceeding 30 days if satisfied that there was sufficient cause preventing the timely filing. The Tribunal emphasized that it could not condone delays beyond 30 days, as explicitly stated in the Proviso to the Section. This interpretation was supported by the case of Miles India Ltd., where the Tribunal held that the time-limit under the Excise Law prevails for duty refunds, and the general Law of Limitation does not apply. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory limitations. The Tribunal rejected the contention that sufficient cause should be liberally construed in favor of the Government when considering condonation of delay. It reiterated that when an application for reference is filed beyond 30 days after the 60-day deadline, the Tribunal lacks the authority to condone the delay, rendering the sufficiency of cause irrelevant. Consequently, both applications for condonation of delay were dismissed, leading to the failure of the applications for making reference to the High Court.
|
