1989 (8) TMI 183 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeals for condonation.
2. Whether there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The case involved M/s. Tamilnadu Steel Tubes Ltd. filing five appeals against an order by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The appeals were delayed by 295 to 296 days. The issue was whether the delay could be condoned, considering the common issue in all appeals.

2. The appellants argued that they were waiting for the outcome of other matters before the Collector (Appeals) and believed the limitation would run from the final decision in those matters. They cited legal precedents, including a Supreme Court judgment and a Madras High Court judgment, to support their argument that the limitation should run from the date of knowledge of the mistake of law. They claimed they were prevented by sufficient cause for the delay.

3. The respondent contended that there was no sufficient cause for the delay. They referred to various legal judgments, including those by the Supreme Court and the Tribunal, emphasizing the need to explain each day's delay after the limitation period. The respondent argued that based on the cited judgments, the applications for condonation of delay should be rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case, noting the undisputed delayed filing of the appeals. The appellants' plea for condonation of delay was based on the belief that the Customs House would re-open earlier cases of erroneous assessments and grant refunds suo moto. However, the Tribunal held that the right to file an appeal is governed by statutory conditions, and the delay in filing the appeals ranged from 296 to 255 days. The Tribunal cited legal principles from the Supreme Court regarding sufficient cause for condoning delay.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. Despite the appellants' arguments and reliance on legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the delay could not be condoned. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' prayer for condonation of delay and dismissed all five appeals on the grounds of limitation without delving into the merits of the appeals.