1991 (6) TMI 132 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal; Condonation of delay; Sufficiency of cause for delay; Admissibility of appeal after the expiry of the period.

The judgment pertains to an application filed by the appellants seeking condonation of a 335-day delay in filing an appeal. The delay was attributed to negligence on the part of the Advocate, as per the Managing Director of the Appellant Company. The appellants claimed that they had handed over all relevant documents to their Advocate for filing two appeals, but only one appeal was filed within the stipulated time. The second appeal, along with the condonation application, was sent to the Tribunal after an inordinate delay. The reasons cited for the delay included confusion regarding the status of the appeals and a factory strike from October 1985 to December 1988.

The Advocates representing the appellants explained in a letter dated 4-3-1991 that the delay was due to the non-receipt of appeal papers sent through a Courier Service that had closed down. The appellants argued that they had taken the draft within the stipulated period and cited Supreme Court cases to support their request for condonation of delay. However, the Revenue's representative opposed the application, stating that there was no conclusive evidence linking the draft to the appeal in question and that mere draft submission does not justify condoning the delay.

The Tribunal examined the contradictory submissions and found them insufficient to establish a valid cause for the delay. It emphasized the importance of demonstrating a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, as prescribed by the Customs Act. The Tribunal highlighted that the right of appeal is a statutory right and must adhere to statutory limitations. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal underscored the need for a clear and explicit explanation for each day of delay, which was lacking in this case. The Tribunal concluded that the confusion and negligence displayed did not warrant condonation of the inordinate delay, ultimately rejecting the condonation application and dismissing the appeal as time-barred.

The judgment was delivered collectively by the Members, with one Member concurring that the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Consequently, the application for condonation was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to being barred by limitation.