9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Grant of stay application on merits after delay condonation. Condonation of Delay: The appeal was filed by the Director, Research & Development Organisation, A.D.E., Government of India, challenging an order by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The appeal was received after the limitation period specified in Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit, citing sufficient cause for the delay. The appellant's representative argued that the delay was due to sufficient cause and requested condonation. The respondent, represented by Shri M.K. Sohal, did not oppose condonation due to the short delay of 7 days. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's stance on condonation of delay, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for condoning the delay, setting aside the High Court's time-barred dismissal and remitting the matter for a hearing on merits. Precedent and Analysis: The Tribunal cited the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, highlighting the elastic nature of the term "sufficient cause" in condoning delays to serve the ends of justice. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantial justice and the need to balance technicalities with fairness. It stressed that delay should not automatically result in dismissal, especially when the delay is not deliberate or negligent. The Tribunal applied a justice-oriented approach, considering the State as an appellant and emphasizing equal treatment under the law. It concluded that the State, representing the community's collective cause, should not be treated differently in delay condonation matters. Grant of Stay Application: After condoning the delay, the Tribunal addressed the application for a stay on merits. The appellant had paid the disputed amount of Rs. 66,636.00. The respondent acknowledged the payment, rendering the Stay Application moot. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Stay Application as infructuous since the amount in dispute had already been paid. Conclusion: The Tribunal's judgment focused on the principles of condonation of delay, emphasizing substantial justice and equal treatment under the law. It highlighted the importance of balancing technicalities with fairness and considered the State's representation in delay condonation matters. The Tribunal also efficiently addressed the grant of the Stay Application, taking into account the payment made by the appellant.
|
