1988 (10) TMI 173 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Applicability of erstwhile Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Communication of orders to the Collector of Customs.
4. Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta, filed a consolidated appeal against orders passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The appeals were filed late, and the department sought condonation of delay, citing reasons such as awaiting the decision on a Revision Application and the retirement of the concerned Appraiser.

The department argued that the delay was due to the lack of communication of the orders to the Collector and that the appeals should be deemed within limitation. The respondent opposed this, arguing that the delay was due to negligence and lack of due care by the department.

2. Applicability of Erstwhile Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The department contended that under the erstwhile Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Government could annul or modify any order without limitation. However, this provision was repealed on 11th October 1982, and the right to review orders without limitation was extinguished. The Tribunal noted that there was no saving clause in the amendment, which meant the right to review orders automatically ended with the repeal of Section 131(3).

3. Communication of Orders to the Collector of Customs:
The department argued that there was no provision under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, to serve a copy of the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs to the Collector of Customs. The Tribunal observed that earlier there was no requirement for sending a copy of the order to the Collector. However, the department could have taken the benefit of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1982, which allowed filing an appeal within six months from the date of knowledge of the order by the Collector.

4. Sufficient Cause for Delay in Filing Appeals:
The department claimed that the delay was due to the lack of communication of the orders and the negligence of lower-level officers. The Tribunal examined the affidavits and arguments presented by both sides. The department's plea that the delay was due to the non-communication of the orders to the Collector was not accepted. The Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed only after a favorable decision in a similar case, indicating that the delay was not due to sufficient cause.

The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, which emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations and that public interest must be considered. However, the Tribunal concluded that the department's reasons for the delay were not sufficient and that the delay could not be condoned.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the applications for condonation of delay, the stay applications, and the appeals. The Tribunal emphasized that the right to review orders without limitation under Section 131(3) was extinguished with the repeal of the section and that the department's reasons for the delay were not sufficient to warrant condonation. The Tribunal also noted that the appeals were filed only after a favorable decision in a similar case, indicating that the delay was not due to sufficient cause.