2025 (1) TMI 83 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing of appeal - time limitation - HELD THAT - Undisputedly, the normal period of limitation for filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was till 24.02.2020 and appellant have filed the appeal alongwith the application for condoning of delay beyond the normal period as prescribed in law. Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the grounds stated in the condonation of delay application he could have condoned the delay of only 30 days. As per the decision by Hon ble Supreme Court in IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION 2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC ORDER , after taking note of pandemic condition prevailing in the country during the period starting from 15.03.2020 has provided that the appeals should have been allowed to be filed even if the period of limitation would have expired. After that date the period of limitation available to the appellant alongwith the application of condonation of delay would have expired on 27.03.2020. It is observed by Hon ble Supreme Court, do not makes any distinction between the appeal to be filed within the normal period of limitation or to be filed alongwith the condonation of delay. During the period of pandemic, it was expected that liberal views should have been taken and appeal to be considered on merits as in the light of decision by Hon ble Supreme Court. Conclusion - The period of limitation expired on 24.02.2020, and the delay in filing the appeal was much beyond the period of 30 days. The appeal is time barred. Appeals are allowed by way of remand to Commissioner (Appeals).

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions addressed in this judgment are:

Whether the appeal filed by the appellants was time-barred due to the expiration of the limitation period.
Whether the condonation of delay in filing the appeal was permissible under the prevailing legal framework, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's directions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Time-barred Appeal

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The standard limitation period for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is 60 days from the relevant date, with a possible condonation of delay for an additional 30 days.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the appeal was filed on 02.06.2020, beyond the normal limitation period which expired on 24.02.2020. The court examined whether the delay could be condoned in light of the Supreme Court's suo moto order regarding the extension of limitation periods due to the pandemic.
Key Evidence and Findings: The appellants filed for condonation of delay citing the pandemic as a reason, referencing the Supreme Court's order which extended limitation periods starting from 15.03.2020.
Application of Law to Facts: The court found that the Supreme Court's order extended the limitation period but did not extend the period within which a delay could be condoned. However, the court acknowledged that the pandemic situation warranted a more liberal interpretation.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent argued that the appeal was time-barred, while the appellants relied on the Supreme Court's directions for leniency during the pandemic.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the appeal should not be considered time-barred due to the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, and the matter should be decided on its merits.

Issue 2: Condonation of Delay

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The statutory framework allows for a condonation of delay up to 30 days beyond the normal limitation period, subject to the discretion of the appellate authority.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court interpreted the Supreme Court's order as applicable to the extension of the limitation period, not specifically to the condonation of delay. However, it emphasized the need for a liberal approach during the pandemic.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted the Supreme Court's directive that the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 should be excluded from the computation of limitation periods.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the Supreme Court's directive to the facts, determining that the appeal should be considered timely due to the exclusion of the pandemic period from the limitation computation.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants argued for condonation based on the Supreme Court's order, while the respondent maintained that the appeal was filed beyond permissible limits.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the condonation of delay should be granted, and the appeal should be heard on its merits.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "In view of this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find that the period of limitation expired on 24.02.2020, and the delay in filing the appeal was much beyond the period of 30 days... I find that the appeal is time barred."
Core Principles Established: The judgment underscores the principle that during extraordinary circumstances like a pandemic, a more lenient approach should be adopted in interpreting limitation periods.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the merits, emphasizing the need for a timely resolution within three months.

← Previous Next →