1996 (2) TMI 276 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, reconstruction of documents, explanation for delay, sufficient cause for delay.

The judgment deals with an appeal filed by the Revenue along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Revenue argued that due to a mistake, the impugned order-in-appeal was not put up for filing the appeal promptly. The delay was attributed to the collapse of the top roof of the Appraising Group Section, which buried and intermingled documents, including the impugned order. The Collector stated that it took time to reconstruct the file due to this incident. However, the Respondent's counsel contended that the explanation provided was an afterthought and highlighted inconsistencies in the Revenue's submissions regarding the date of receipt of the impugned order. The Tribunal noted that the delay of about 175 days was not adequately explained by the Revenue. Despite various explanations provided by the Revenue, including heavy rain and document reconstruction, the Tribunal found no sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay and the appeal were rejected.

In a supplementary appeal, similar grounds were raised for condonation of delay, but the Tribunal upheld its decision from the main appeal, emphasizing the lack of sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal found that since the main appeal was not filed in time, the supplementary appeal was also time-barred and, therefore, rejected the application for condonation of delay in the supplementary appeal as well. The judgment underscores the importance of providing a valid and sufficient reason for delay in filing appeals, as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal scrutinized the explanations given by the Revenue and concluded that the delay was not justified, leading to the dismissal of both the main appeal and the supplementary appeal.