1995 (1) TMI 180 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal
The case involved an appeal filed by M/s Niwas Spinning Mills Limited against an order passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The appeal was presented with a delay of 9 months and 13 days, exceeding the statutory period of 3 months as per Section 129A(3) of the Customs Act. The appellant's advocate argued that financial difficulties due to late clearance of goods caused the delay and cited legal precedents to support the plea for condonation of delay. On the other hand, the respondent's representative contended that the application lacked an affidavit, and the reasons provided did not constitute sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal considered the arguments and legal precedents cited by both parties.

Issue 2: Arguments and Legal Precedents
The appellant's advocate reiterated that the delay was due to financial constraints arising from the late clearance of goods, preventing timely filing of the appeal. Legal precedents such as the cases of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi and Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji were cited to support the contention that there was a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Conversely, the respondent's representative argued against condonation, citing cases like Collector of Central Excise v. F.G.P. Limited and CCE v. Hindustan Prestressed Control Structure (P) Ltd. to emphasize the lack of diligence on the part of the appellants.

Issue 3: Tribunal's Decision
After hearing both sides and reviewing the facts, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the dates mentioned in the impugned order. The appellant's advocate highlighted difficulties faced by the appellants due to managing other affairs and being a single person unable to instruct counsel promptly. However, the Tribunal observed that the reasons provided did not constitute sufficient cause for the delay, as per the legal standards set by the Supreme Court in previous cases like Ramlal & Others v. Rewa Coal Fields Ltd. and Ram Bhawan Singh and Others v. Jagdish and Others. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' lack of vigilance and negligence contributed to the delay, leading to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay.

Issue 4: Dismissal of Appeal
Due to the rejection of the condonation of delay application, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred, without delving into the merits of the case. The decision was based on the finding that the delay was not justified by sufficient cause, as required by law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the crucial aspect of condonation of delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the legal principles governing such applications and the need for sufficient cause to justify delays beyond the statutory limit.