1990 (8) TMI 250 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Examination of sufficient cause for delay.
3. Application of legal precedents regarding delay condonation.

Detailed Analysis:

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The primary issue addressed in the judgment is the condonation of a 69-day delay in filing appeals by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The appeals were initially filed in the Calcutta registry and later transferred to the Delhi registry. Along with the appeals, applications for stay and condonation of delay were also submitted.

Examination of Sufficient Cause for Delay:
The applicant argued that the delay was due to the need to deliberate on whether to file the appeals and to assess the prima facie merits of the case. The decision to file the appeals was made after discussions at the Collectors' Conference on 7th and 8th March 1990. The applicant cited the Bombay High Court decision in "M/s. Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India" and the Supreme Court ruling in "Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another v. MST. Katiji and Others" to support the plea for condonation of delay. The applicant emphasized that there was no negligence and that the delay was due to procedural movements within various departments.

Legal Precedents and Tribunal's Decision:
The respondent opposed the condonation, citing negligence and referencing the Supreme Court case "Union of India and Others v. M/s. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. and Another." The Tribunal reviewed the facts and the time chart provided by the applicant, which detailed the procedural steps taken from the receipt of the order on 27-11-1989 to the filing of the appeals on 8-5-1990.

The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's stance in "Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another v. MST. Katiji and Others," which emphasized that the courts should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delays to serve substantial justice. However, the Tribunal also considered other precedents, such as "Union of India v. M/s. Tata Yodogawa Ltd." and "Mr. Ram Lal v. M/s. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.," which highlighted the need for sufficient cause and the importance of not disturbing the legal rights accrued due to the expiration of the limitation period.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that there was negligence on the part of the appellant and that sufficient cause for the delay was not established. The Tribunal decided not to exercise its discretion to condone the delay under Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay were rejected, and the appeals and stay applications were dismissed as time-barred without delving into the merits of the case.