1987 (6) TMI 244 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals
2. Allegations of deliberate suppression of order
3. Compliance with statutory requirements for communication of orders
4. Condonation of delay and principles guiding it

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeals:
The primary issue revolves around whether the appeals filed by the Collector of Customs, Airport, Bombay, were within the permissible time frame. The impugned order was communicated on 13.3.86, and the appeals were filed on 17.10.86, resulting in an apparent delay of 4 months and 4 days. The Collector argued that the order came to his notice only on 14.8.86 due to deliberate suppression by the staff, and thus, the appeals were within time.

2. Allegations of Deliberate Suppression of Order:
The Collector alleged that the relevant records were deliberately suppressed by the dealing staff, bringing the order to his notice only on 14.8.86. This serious allegation was not supported by an affidavit, and the respondents did not file any counter-statement or affidavit to controvert this claim. The Tribunal noted the absence of clear evidence regarding the issue of authorization by the Collector to the Assistant Collector, Tribunal Coordination Unit, to receive orders on his behalf.

3. Compliance with Statutory Requirements for Communication of Orders:
Sub-section (5) of Section 128-A of the Customs Act requires the Collector (Appeals) to communicate the order to the appellants, the adjudicating authority, and the Collector of Customs. The respondents argued that this requirement was met when the Assistant Collector, Tribunal Coordination Unit, received the order on 13.3.86. However, the Tribunal noted that the respondents failed to produce copies of the standing instructions issued by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, to substantiate this claim.

4. Condonation of Delay and Principles Guiding It:
The Tribunal considered the principles guiding the condonation of delay, emphasizing that each case depends on its facts and circumstances. The Collector's statement about the deliberate suppression of the order by the staff was not controverted by the respondents. The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's observations in Bank of India v. M/s. Javed Textiles and Others, highlighting the need for a liberal approach in cases involving public institutions. The Supreme Court's pronouncement in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. MST. Katiji and Others was also cited, emphasizing that the judiciary should aim to remove injustice rather than legalize it on technical grounds.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appeals filed within three months from 14.8.86 should be considered as filed within the period of limitation. Even if the communication date was taken as 13.3.86, the delay of 4 months and 4 days was condoned based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court. The applications for condonation of delay were allowed, and the appeals were admitted for a decision on merits.