9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Detailed Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi pertains to the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant-Collector of Customs, Bombay. The impugned order was received in the Customs House on 3-4-1986, and the appeal should have been presented to the Tribunal by 3-7-1986. However, the appeal was presented on 24-11-1986, making it barred by limitation by 4 months and 21 days. The Date Chart accompanying the affidavit filed in support of the application provided a timeline of events related to the delay in filing the appeal, demonstrating a lack of urgency and diligence in pursuing the matter promptly. During the hearing, Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, representing the appellant, argued that the delay should be condoned based on the merits of the case and cited a previous Tribunal decision and a Supreme Court ruling to support his contention. He emphasized that the delay was sufficiently explained and should be overlooked to allow the appeal to be heard on its merits. On the other hand, Shri B.B. Gujral, Advocate for the respondent, contended that the delay was not adequately explained and criticized the sluggish approach taken in pursuing the appeal. He referenced various legal decisions to support his argument that the delay should not be condoned, highlighting the lack of a valid reason for the delay. The Tribunal analyzed the timeline of events leading to the delay in filing the appeal and noted that even after realizing the urgency of the matter, the applicant and his subordinates did not act promptly. Despite being aware that the file was not traceable on 8-9-1986, significant delays occurred in calling for records and seeking technical opinions, prolonging the appeal process unnecessarily. The Tribunal concluded that the inordinate delay was not satisfactorily explained, and no sufficient cause was presented to justify condonation of the delay. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the Supreme Court decision cited by the appellant did not support the condonation of such a prolonged delay. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal (No. 2954/86-C) due to being time-barred. The judgment underscores the importance of diligence and prompt action in legal proceedings to avoid unnecessary delays and potential dismissal of appeals on grounds of limitation.
|
