9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Analysis: The applicants filed an application seeking condonation of a 26-day delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The impugned order was received on 4-3-1993, with the last date for filing the appeal being 3-6-1993. The appeal was filed on 29-6-1993, citing Section 129A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for condonation of the delay. The delay was attributed to the complexity of the issue of classification and interpretation of exemption notification, as well as administrative changes such as the transfer of the regular Collector and re-allocation of charges among Addl. Collectors. The delay was also explained by the time taken for processing, examination, drafting, and approval of the appeal documents within the Collectorate office. The applicants contended that the delay was mainly due to the transfer of the regular Collector, necessitating time for the new Collector to familiarize himself with the case files. They cited legal precedents to support their argument, emphasizing that the delay was justified due to administrative changes and the need for proper examination of the issue. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the delay was not adequately explained, especially the period between 3-6-1993 to 15-6-1993. They questioned the need for such a long time to examine a supposedly simple issue and highlighted discrepancies in the timeline of drafting the appeal after the Collector's order. The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and evaluated the reasons for the delay. It was acknowledged that the delay between 3-6-1993 to 16-6-1993 was justified due to the transfer of the regular Collector and the subsequent decision-making process of the new Collector. The Tribunal also noted that in governmental offices, in-charge personnel have limited time for additional responsibilities. Legal precedents were cited to emphasize that a pragmatic and liberal approach should be taken in assessing delays in governmental decisions, considering the procedural complexities and delays inherent in such processes. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that sufficient cause was established for condoning the 26-day delay in filing the appeal. The decision was based on the understanding that delays in governmental decision-making processes should be viewed with some latitude, given the procedural intricacies and collective nature of such decisions. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of advancing substantial justice and ensuring that delays do not unduly penalize government entities, recognizing the need for a balanced approach in such cases. In conclusion, the Tribunal granted condonation of the delay and scheduled the Stay Petition for hearing on 5-11-1993, taking into account the circumstances and justifications presented by the applicants for the delay in filing the appeal.
|
