9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Condonation of Delay in filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi.
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Collector of Customs (Madras) against an order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The appeal was received with a delay, and an application for Condonation of Delay was submitted along with the appeal memo. The appellant's representative argued that the delay was due to the examination of the matter by revenue authorities, causing the delay in filing the appeal within the stipulated period. The representative requested condonation of the delay. The respondent, represented by a consultant, opposed the condonation of delay, citing negligence on the part of the appellant. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the respondent argued that lack of due diligence and proper documentation should lead to the rejection of the condonation of delay. After hearing both parties and examining the facts, the Tribunal reviewed the application for condonation of delay, which highlighted that the delay was due to inter-departmental communication issues. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the Tribunal noted that delays caused by inter-departmental correspondence are not sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. The absence of an affidavit from the appellant's authorized representative further indicated negligence on the appellant's part in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case due to the appeal being dismissed on grounds of limitation. The judgment emphasizes the importance of due diligence and proper documentation in seeking condonation of delay and highlights that inter-departmental delays may not be considered valid reasons for delay in filing appeals.
|
