1992 (4) TMI 128 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Validity and sufficiency of medical evidence provided for the delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:

The central issue in this case was whether the delay of 87 days in filing the appeal should be condoned. The appeal was filed late due to the appellant's medical condition, specifically Hemiparesis, which allegedly prevented timely filing.

- Member (Judicial) Opinion:
The Member (Judicial) accepted the medical certificate provided by the appellant, which indicated treatment for "right-sided Hemiparesis from 10-4-1990 involving the facial muscles also." Given the serious nature of the ailment and the absence of any contra evidence, the Member (Judicial) was inclined to condone the delay "in the interest of justice." Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the stay petition was directed to be listed for hearing.

- Member (Technical) Opinion:
The Member (Technical) disagreed, noting that the medical certificate did not explicitly state that the appellant was bedridden or unable to perform day-to-day activities. The certificate was described as "very guardedly worded," and there was no supporting evidence such as prescriptions or proof of medicine purchases to substantiate the claim. The Member (Technical) emphasized the need for credible evidence to justify the delay and concluded that the appellant had not made out a case for condonation. Therefore, the delay was not condoned, and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

2. Validity and Sufficiency of Medical Evidence:

The sufficiency and credibility of the medical evidence provided by the appellant were scrutinized to determine if the delay in filing the appeal was justified.

- Member (Judicial) Opinion:
The medical certificate from Dr. V.R. Issac was deemed sufficient by the Member (Judicial), who noted that the appellant was treated for a serious condition affecting his facial muscles. The absence of evidence to the contrary led to the acceptance of the medical certificate as a valid explanation for the delay.

- Member (Technical) Opinion:
The Member (Technical) found the medical certificate insufficient, pointing out that it did not confirm the appellant was bedridden or unable to communicate. The lack of additional supporting evidence, such as prescriptions or detailed medical records, led to the conclusion that the appellant had not substantiated his claim adequately.

Point of Difference:
The divergence in opinions led to a referral to the Vice President to resolve whether the delay should be condoned.

Vice President's Decision:
The Vice President reviewed the case and noted that both Members had acknowledged the medical certificate, and its genuineness was not in question. The Vice President cited previous judgments where delays were condoned due to sickness and found that the medical certificate, supported by medical bills, provided sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the Vice President agreed with the Member (Judicial) that the delay should be condoned.

Final Order:
In light of the majority view, the application for condonation of the delay was allowed, and the appeal was permitted to proceed.